Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Chris Young

my cousin User: Dustind tried to do this but it was changed back. He tried to rename Chris Young (musician) to Chris Young (Country) because of two reasons 1. His website name [www.chrisyoungcountry.com] and the cmt.com name for him as Chris Young (Country) [1] and I second this choice so can we move him?

Dustinwayne 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No because Chris Young is not a country, he is a musician. --Goyston 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The next place to take this if you wish to pursue it is requested moves, but I'd have to agree with Goyston that it's not a good idea. IMO if you do take it to RM, it will be rejected. But feel free to try! Andrewa 20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: clarify meaning of "use most common name" guideline

Currently, the Use common names guideline states:

Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Rationale and specifics: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

First, searching any version of WP:RM for the term "common" makes it very obvious that this guideline (and, more importantly, the convention it reflects) is by far the most cited in terms of determining what article titles should be; no other guideline/convention is cited (directly or indirectly) nearly as frequently.

Despite this fact, exceptions to using the most common name, even when there is no conflict, is often favored by significant numbers. In particular, "consistency in naming" within a group of articles that share a common trait is often desired, which typically leads to adding disambiguatory contextual information to the titles of certain article titles even when disambiguation is not necessary, thus causing the use of something more than the most common name, even though there is no conflict.

When this happens, there are typically two sides. In general, there are those that support use the most common name except for certain per-article specific exceptions for "good reason", where "consistency in naming with those articles in the same category that require disambiguation" is not considered a "good reason", and there are those that feel use the most common name is a relatively loose guideline, if you will, which can certainly be ignored for reasons of consistency within a group of articles. How the numbers fall out depends on the context.

The debate at WT:TV-NC has been raging for a couple of months. There the majority is clearly with those that favor "disambiguate only when necessary". We have essentially the same debate over at WT:NC:CITY about U.S. city names, but that has been raging for over three years (check out the archives), and there the sides are more evenly matched: there is clearly no consensus to disambiguate (using the comma convention) all U.S. city articles, but nor is there a consensus to disambiguate only when necessary.

In both cases, and who knows in how many others, the lack of clarity in the common names guideline is a factor.

One way or the other, I would like to see this clarified. So, I propose three options:

1. Clarify ALL of the naming guidelines to say, in no uncertain terms: If the most common name used for the subject of an article has no known ambiguity issue, then it should be the name of the article, except on a per article basis with consensus for "good reason" specifically not to include unnecessary disambiguation for the sake of naming consistency within a particular category of articles.
2. Clarify ALL of the naming guidelines to say in no uncertain terms that, when there is consensus to do so, consistency of naming all articles within a given category of articles is a legitimate reason to waive following the use the most common name guideline/convention and to allow disambiguation of all articles within a given category whether they require disambiguation or not, when supported by consensus.
3. Leave the naming guidelines as they are.

NOTE: If Option 1 or Option 2 is supported, we'll work out the particular wording changes in all of the affected guidelines then. This survey is to establish whether we have consensus for a change one way or the other.

THIS SURVEY WILL REMAIN OPEN FOR ONE MONTH AND WILL CLOSE ON JANUARY 14, 2007.

Please vote/comment in the appropriate section as follows:

# '''Support''' Option N. Comments. ~~~~

--Serge 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Survey: Abstain/Not yet votes/Comments/Discussion

• Serge, as much as I probably agree with you in general, this honestly fails WP:SNOW. Is a poll really necessary? Like you said, there's such a long history and entrenched opinions that it's not going to be solved right here, right now, with one poll. –  Anþony  talk  00:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I dropped and cracked my crystal ball. Worst case at least we'll establish that we don't have consensus one way or the other at this high of a level (as opposed to down in individual naming convention areas). By the way, if you know of any place this should be announced, please let me know. --Serge 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Before starting a month-long survey wouldn't it be helpful to spend a week discussing the matter? Also, you've made a whole presentation of your viewpoint as part of the survey - How about stripping out the argument and just asking the question? This seems to be stacking the deck. -Will Beback · † · 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that it makes more sense to just discuss it before trying to have a survey. I think your proposal is worth considering, but right now the process overwhelms the content. --Milo H Minderbinder 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Really on stacking the deck? I can't tell which side he favors. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually given the burnout from the discussions on this topic the results are more likely to show that many editors are tired of proposals for votes. Vegaswikian 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• We are free to spend the next few weeks chit-chatting in this section. We can discuss postponing votes for now, if there is a reason. But I'd like to hear that opinion expressed by someone other than from someone from the clan that usually disagrees with me no matter what I say (you know who you are).
• Will, as Doug Bell illustrates, I don't know how you would think I'm stacking the deck from what I've written here. Please do not reveal what you know about my position. If you feel either position is misrepresented please indicate what's wrong with it and how it could be corrected. Thanks. --Serge 02:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing any mention of voting completely for now, ideally voting shouldn't even be necessary and decisions can be made with just discussion. Why not just propose an addition and let people react and propose their own alternatives? --Milo H Minderbinder 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about avoiding even the appearance of yet another poll at this time. For some historical perspective, I just happened to learn about http://nostalgia.wiki.x.io/ -- which is an archive of a very early version of Wikipedia, from circa 2001. On the Naming conventions from that time, the common names principle initially applied specifically to persons. At this time it is interesting to see that many major U.S. cities tended to be at simple names, Chicago, Los Angeles, even Hollywood, San Francisco, Dallas, and Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Miami, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Seattle

Some are at the city, state name Cleveland, Ohio Boston, Massachusetts, Denver, Colorado, Detroit, Michigan, Honolulu, Hawaii, Minneapolis, Minnesota, San Diego (sometimes with a redirect from the simple name and sometimes not). And some, like Houston were a disambiguation page. Astonishingly enough, there was the beginnings of an article for Parma, Michigan, a tiny, tiny village near where I live. I'm flabbergasted that someone had created an article for Parma so early on.

And some were simply missing Atlanta, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, San Antonio

A few had what seem now as unusual names: Wisconsin/Milwaukee, City of New York, (New York, New York is a disambiguation page), Portland Oregon (no comma)

Of course, the irregularities and inconsistencies of long ago don't really have that much bearing on the inconsistencies and irregularities of today's Wikipedia. I find it interesting to see the roots of current practices and how they evolved. Another interesting page in this regard is WikiProject U.S. States, which contains some confusing guidance about naming cities: Each U.S. city shall be called by the common name of the city, e.g. Jackson, Mississippi, Des Moines, Iowa, New York, New York. All other possible common names for the city should re-direct to the main city entry. Ideally, it should be that every city has an entry titled in the CITY NAME, STATE NAME manner. New York City, for example, or other such instances should at least be in some way associated to a CITY NAME, STATE NAME entry so that a common linking standard can be maintained. (The proliferation of New York City entries shows, I think, the need for a naming standard specific to cities). Could it be that we can trace the controversies all the way back to here? "A U.S. city shall be called by the common name of the city" with the examples given in the form of city, state!! I'm not sure what, if any, light this brings to bear, but I found it interesting. 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs)

Interesting indeed! Those early editors clearly did not see a distinction between "common name" and "City, State" for US places.

The "Rationale and specifics" at WP:NC(CN) start with so Serge's question appears to be whether WP:NC(CN) has the "right" to allow other naming conventions to contain Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication.... I'd try to challenge/expand/discuss other parts of the preamble too, but it's too hard to pick bits out of that up there and discuss them properly down here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. Interesting how you refer to WP:NC as "down here" and a subsection, WP:NC(CN), as "up there". I see it the other way around: WP:NC is at the "higher" level (and is, in fact, "policy"). Anyway, yes, this is about the WP:NC(CN) "nutshell" description, or what it represents, which, by the way, has only been there since June.

The nutshell description may be new, but the gist of it has been in place at least since September 2005, when the Exceptions section was added. Most of the relevant discussion is scattered across Archive 01. Is it the intention of this proposal to override (or supersede) WP:NC(CN)? --Ishu 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the intent of this proposal to clarify ALL naming guidelines with respect to this issue one way or other other.

• If Option 1 prevails, then, yes, the result would include modifying WP:NC(CN) and ALL other naming guidelines to be consistent with use the most common name when no conflict exists and disambiguate only when necessary (category-specific guidelines would only apply when there is no clear "most common name", or there is a conflict with the most common).
• If option 2 prevails, then the notion currently stated at the WP:NC(CN) nutshell description would be reflected in ALL guidelines, to the extent required (for example, at U.S. cities it would state that use of the most common name for a city would be an exception requiring consensus approval at a given city article; at TV episode names it would state that consensus could choose to disambiguate all episode titles for a given series).

The main intent is to reduce ambiguity given by conflicting guidelines with respect to "use the most common name", and to clarify which guideline "rules" (if you will), when there is a conflict. Does that make sense? --Serge 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Will, please do not misunderstand. This is not about U.S. cities alone (and never has been for me)! This is a much bigger issue. Honestly, I would support either option 1 or 2 (and I understand the ramifications to my position on U.S. city naming). I much prefer either to the chaos, ambiguity and rifts caused by the ambiguity of the status quo, option 3. Option 2 is taking the changes made to WP:NC(CN) in June 2006 a step further. Note that there is currently an arbcom case where the majority essentially represents the Option 1 view, despite what the WP:NC(CN) nutshell currently says.

Milo, we can try doing this without voting at all, but I honestly don't see how that will work. No one has even said whether yet which they prefer, Option 1, 2 or 3. So far, all I'm saying is I have a strong preferenc of either 1 or 2 rather than 3, and I do have a slight preference between 1 and 2, but it's insignificant compared to my desire that either one be selected. Do you guys agree that either 1 or 2 is better than the status quo?

We need to resolve this, one way or the other, or the rifts will continue ad infinitum. --Serge 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider option 3 to be viable given the current issues. The question as you have presented it for me is an issue of a subjective or objective guideline. I'm not a fan of subjective guidelines since with a larger community it is more difficult to reach consensus. With objective guidelines that still allow for exceptions within the guideline (not simply articles not following the guideline), we can have a specific style that is always clear. If you select a subjective guideline you leave the can of worms open. I think it is much easier to use objective guidelines for naming of articles. If we were talking notabiliy, then I might not be taking as clear of a stance. Vegaswikian 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that would put you in favor of option 2, right? Since "good reason" is the subjective? --Ishu 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I see option 1 as subjective and leading to many naming issues in the future. If we are going to change, lets change to something that ends the discussion and allows editors to edit. Vegaswikian 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Option 2 is any less objective than Option 1. To the contrary, it seemes to me. Option 1 is very objective for all articles for which there are no ambiguity issues: use the most common name (except for individual article exceptions when there is consensus support for the exception). Option 2 is not objective even for articles with unambiguous most common names: it just clarifies that article naming is subjective, subject totally to consensus decision on a guideline basis for each category of articles separately. For articles that do have ambiguity issues, the two options are no different (follow WP:D and the category-specific guidelines/conventions for disambiguation). So how is Option 2 any more objective than Option 1? --Serge 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Option 1 is subjective in that we leave the future articles problem on the table (only one city article exists today so it does not need a state, just create a (disambiguation) page that will be moved to the city name in the future). Option one means that over time an article can move between several different names and even back to some that it had in the past as opinions change. Options 1 would require a lot more redirects since the article name is not predictable. Option 2 provides the option of saying that the naming convention is. It ends the discussions of what the primary usage is since generally there would be no overlap. Option 2 would require minimal redirects since the article name is predictable. If option 2 was selected, it could be used to resolve cross country/current/historical useage naming issues which again are usually based on what is the primary topic, which in many cases in a very subjective POV discussion. Vegaswikian 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would favour Option 1 - see WP:UNDAB for a proposal I made earlier in the year to introduce a similar system. Unfortunatly this fell through, but it could still be of interest.

Also, I should note that it is strange that we should be having a poll as to whether a poll should be conducted. Can't we just get on with it --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not having a poll as to whether a poll should be conducted. We're discussing whether the description above is clear and whether we should have a poll on it, or just put in the change. --Serge 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason why I think this fails WP:SNOW is that it would invalidate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Since there seems to be a existing consensus to pre-disambiguate kings and ships, I don't see this going very far. Per ArbCom: "When an arguably arbitrary decision has been made, unless there is a substantial basis for changing it, the decision should be accepted."[2] –  Anþony  talk  21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. And I've noted this before elsewhere, and probably should note this in Option 1. For categories where "the most common name" is difficult to ascertain for most if not all articles in that category, then "use the most common name" does not apply. I believe ships and royalty qualify in this respect (again perhaps with a few notable exceptions, which is par for the course on this topic). --Serge 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge - the "up there"/"down here" referred to the large preamble to the proposed poll. I have issues with the neutrality of that introduction, but found it difficult to pick out parts of that text "up there" to discuss "down here" - all on this page. It's possible my issues are related to how I got to be interested in this, so I'll hold off for now. On the other point (Milo's) of discussion without voting, you could have stopped either just above the survey heading, or even better just above your 3 options, and allowed a conversation about the issues to develop, rather than trying to force us to choose between your current understanding of the possible "solutions". Someone else might have solutions we haven't thought of that turn out to satisfy the concerns, but it's hard for them to bring them in. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Feel free to copy/paste/indent/italicize whatever you want to comment on, and comment on it. The voting is on hold so all comments and suggestions are encouraged. --Serge 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we need to clarify this policy page; it needs to include the following (perfectly accurate) sentence from WP:NC(CN)#Exceptions:

"Many Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines contain implicit or explicit exceptions to the "common names" principle."

We do not need any more polls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole proposal is flawed because of misguided notions of what constitutes somethings "name", because of misguided beliefs that "most common" is clearly defined and determinable, and because it is just bad-faith failure to accept the fact that Serge's repeated proposals along these lines do not have a consensus in support of them and are unlikely to achieve it. Gene Nygaard 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you please address the actual proposal and explain which option you would support, and, if you can't, why, specifically. Thanks. --Serge 06:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It is premature to do that, as it specifically says below. We're still at the stage of framing the issues, and determining whether there should be any indication of support for options at all.

We could say that "John Smith Jr" and "John Smith, Jr." and "John Smith, Jr" and "John Smith Jr." and "John Smith jr." are different names, and different from "John Smith", since each would make a distinct article name. But it isn't necessarily fruitful to try to determine which of these is "more commonly used" for any one person, by some vague and undefined meaning of what constitutes one use so that we can get numbers to compare it, by a vague and undefined meaning relating to possibly redundant copies (would we, for an author, count each copy of a book as a separate instance of use under that specific variant, for example?). Would we count some newspaper story caling him John Smith as one use of that without the Jr. in whatever form? It works the same way with the names of city, state form—the form we use on addresses and return addresses of mail, the form we use on application forms, driver's licences, and whatever. The form used in newspaper bylines. The form used in Wikipedia articles. What constitutes one example of that usage, so that it would ever be possible to count them up and compare them to some other usage? Gene Nygaard 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, how do we deal with improper fragmentation; the Jr. example also works, of course, for citiess. Is "Yreka, California" really different from some usage of "Yreka, CA" and from "Yreka, Cal." and from "Yreka, Calif." when the issue is determining whether the "California" should be included or not? Or course, Serge would say yes—anything to fragment the count so his just plain "Yreka" would end up "most common". Plus a lot of speculation about what people living in the town use in conversation, and who knows what else. Gene Nygaard 15:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Then there is the postal service recommendation for addresses: YREKA CA with all-caps and no punctuation. Gene Nygaard 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gene, please leave the baggage elsewhere. Statements like Serge would say yes—anything to fragment the count so his just plain "Yreka" would end up "most common". are not helpful, not productive, violate WP:AGF, and, most importantly, are entirely inaccurate. I will be just has happy to support Option 2 as Option 1 if that's where we have consensus. My goal here is to not end up with Option 3.

Perhaps we need another initiative to clarify what "common name" means. But I don't see how determining most common name can be about which of these [possible names] is "more commonly used" for any one person. I think the most common name can only mean that name which is used most often to refer to the article subject if you could look at all references to it made by all people on Earth within a given period of time. But what "common name" means is irrelevant to this proposal. The term has been used in Wikipedia for years. This effort is about whether the most common name should be used, regardless of what it is or how it is determined, when there is no conflict about what it is and when there are no conflicts with other uses of that name, but category-specific guidelines dictate use of title other than "the most common name" none-the-less.

In those cases where "the most common name" is unknown or difficult to determine (e.g., royalty, ship names), this discussion is not applicable, as all three options agree that individual category-specific guidelines should simply be followed. --Serge 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In those cases where "the most common name" is unknown or difficult to determine (e.g., royalty, ship names, highways, settlements), this discussion is not applicable, as all three options agree that individual category-specific guidelines should simply be followed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That being said, I would be in favor of option 2, if it were to come to a vote. Specifics should override generalities. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. What's this nonsense about "category-specific guidelines". That's not something we generally have. That's not something generally desirable.

2. You, Serge, have been the one fighting tooth and nail against the very notion that U.S. cities could ever have these "category-specific guidelines".

3. Any discussion without having a very clear definition of both what most common name means, and a clear idea of how realistic it is to determine it, is premature at the least. Gene Nygaard 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Option 2. What in the world is the meaning of '"naming consistency within a category of articles"'?

1. Does this mean category as in Category:Dumb ideas? That wouldn't make sense, because any article can be and usually is in several different categories. That would mean that you'd end up with articles "correctly" named in one of their categories, and "incorrectly" named in others of its categories.
2. But if not, just what in the world does it mean? Gene Nygaard 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is expressing an attitude of incredulity really necessary, Gene? It's not helpful. I did not mean "category" in the strict sense of Wikipedia Categories. Sorry for the confusion. I thought it was obvious from context, but I can see how one might think that's what I meant. I meant any "group" of articles with a common characteristic for which one naming guideline applies (TV episodes, royalty, ships, etc.). Those are the category-specific guidelines I'm referring you. If you don't know what someone means by a term, i suggest you ask, politely, rather than label it as something like "nonsense". Thanks.

I have not fought against U.S. cities (or anything else) having "category-specific guidelines" (oh, so you did know what I meant? Why act like you didn't, then?). I have fought against "category-specific guidelines" applying in cases where the most common name is known and is not in conflict with usage by any other subjects covered in Wikipedia. I fully support the use of category-specific guidelines where the most common name is not known, or is in conflict with other uses. In the U.S cities case, or, ideally, in the case of all cities (NC:CITY), a category-specific guideline should specify how cities are to be disambiguated when the name for a particular city is shared by other subjects in Wikipedia (and the particular city is not the primary topic for that name). However, I also would support the reverse position (Option 2), if there was consensus for it throughout Wikipedia. That's what this proposal is about - to clarify this one way or the other. Please do not misrepresent my position by making false assertions like [You] have been the one fighting tooth and nail against the very notion that U.S. cities could ever have these "category-specific guidelines". Thanks. --Serge 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, you say that your position favoring Option 2 is based on the notion that Specifics should override generalities. Why? Shouldn't specifics augment the generalities, rather than be in conflict and have to override them? Presumably, we have the "generalities" -- general principles, policies, and guidelines -- to create order and consistency in Wikipedia. If the generalities have to override the specifics, or vice versa, isn't that a symptom of something being inconsistent, something that needs fixing? --Serge 20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's a well established tool in legal interpretation: the specific controls over the general. It doesn't necessarily imply a conflict, but often is simply a matter that the more general rule allows for more than one interpretation—it has a certain vagueness or other ambiguity to it, which is often a good thing. Furthermore, even when there is a real conflict, that is often a sensible step in the process of "fixing" things, if fixing is needed—rather than a headlong rush to change the general rule. Gene Nygaard 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, when such "fixing" eventually turns out to be desirable, the best way of fixing it is to rewrite the general rule so that the specific rule is no longr an exception, but rather fits in with the general rule. That is what is totally missing from your Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 in this proposal. Gene Nygaard 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking. Option 2 is exactly rewriting the general so that the specific is no longer an exception. If that's not clear, then please help me write so that it is, because that is most certainly the intent! --Serge 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you tell me you are not joking.

You characterize it as an exception.

You mischaracterize it as being only disambiguation.

You don't change the general rule at all. More specifically, you do not change your interpretation of the general rule, an interpretation which is not shared by everyone else in this discussion. Gene Nygaard 00:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Gene, let me know on my talk page when you're ready to remove the chip on your shoulder and work with me on this in a productive fashion. Until then, this isn't helping... Thanks. --Serge 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Gene, the well established tool in legal interpretation: the specific controls over the general? You mean like how a city can pass a law that conflicts with the Constitution? I guess not. There are general principles like use the most common name unless there is a conflict. And there are specific rules about what to use when the common name is not known or there is a conflict. But such specific rules themselves do not conflict with the general principles. But when the general rule is to use the most common name (when known and no conflict), and the specific rule is use something other than the most common name, even when its known and there is no conflict, THEN we have a conflict between the specific and the general. And that's when we have conflict between those who support the idea that the specific should at most only augment the general (Option 1), and that any specific rule that conflicts the general is invalid (or, legally, unconstitutional), and those who believe the specific should override the general. You know, I thought we sorted this out during the Civil War... Hopefully we can solve it in Wikipedia without so much bloodshed. --Serge 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy is Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. - no mention of "common". Both WP:NC(CN) and WP:NC:CITY (amongst others) are more specific guidelines under that policy. National City Naming Conventions are further more specific guidelines under WP:NC:CITY. I don't know the US legal situation, but in Australia, it is possible for a state law and a federal law to differ in some detail, and the Australian Constitution specifies which has precedence to the extent of any inconsistency (it differs depending on whether that power has been ceded to the Commonwealth). Gene didn't mean "like how a city can pass a law that conflicts with the Constitution", he meant like the general state open road speed limit is 100 km/h, but a specific road can have a speed limit of 110 km/h (sorry I don't know the US equivalent), or a state might require certain food preparation standards in restaurants ("dishes must be washed in hot water"), but a city could set a stricter standard on restaurants within their boundaries ("dishes must be washed in water at least 75 °C with 1% detergent solution"). The specific overrules the general. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott, the entire page is policy, not just the one statement you mentioned, which is the "policy in a nutshell". On the page that is policy, WP:NC, it says, under Use common names of persons and things:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

That is policy. Besides that, as I mentioned above, if you look at WP:RM and search for the term "common", you will see that this part of the policy is by far the most utilized to justify page moves. No other convention or policy comes even close. Arguably, use the most common name for titles is the quintessential Wikipedia rule. --Serge 22:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the policy page. That is, including its very first sentence, which starts: "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines [...]" (I added some bolding).

How many times a particular one of these guidelines is cited in WP:RM is irrelevant as to its guideline status. The common names guideline is a quintessential guideline. It does however not supersede the general principle of the NC policy as quoted by Scott from the Nutshell. Further, the "exceptions" section of the common names guideline is no less "quintessential" than the rest of that guideline. That "exceptions" section avoids that the common names guideline would contradict other specific naming conventions guidelines. That same "exceptions" section also makes this poll proposal moot. I mean: I think Serge has been unsuccessful in demonstrating that something would be wrong with the current version of the "exceptions" section of the common names guideline. And imho you'd need to demonstrate that something is wrong with it before this poll idea would make any sense. --Francis Schonken 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We can debate about whether this means that or that means this, but none of that matters. I don't need to demonstrate anything to show that something is wrong. What demonstrates that something is wrong is years of conflict over naming conventions centered on the lack of clarity in the role/priority of "use the most common name" guideline when category-specific guidelines indicate a name other that the most common name should be used. --Serge 07:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. "[...] something is wrong". Yes, but is "something wrong" with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions? And would anything be solved by changing Wikipedia:Naming conventions so that it contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions? Well, if there is a "problem", and if no solution is offered that convincingly would alleviate that problem, then why would we apply that "solution"? My appreciation is that the solutions that have thus far been proposed are worse than the earlier solutions, so only would make a nasty problem go completely out of hand.

So, here's what I propose: let's wait to see if something comes out of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions: maybe it brings some new insights on how to approach the issue. Those who feel compelled can of course participate in that ArbCom case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence). Thus far, however, I see no "lack of guidance" in the naming conventions realm being a root cause for that problem having evolved to an Arbitration case (on the contrary: "wikilawyering", which rather indicates an excess of rules, is one of the most often listed reproaches in that case). And, giving my personal opinion, if Elonka would have timely captured the meaning of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions this would never have evolved to an ArbCom (with its typical display of nasty behaviour, while an ArbCom can only remedy behaviour). --Francis Schonken 10:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

With a discussion this long, detailed, and sometimes heated, I may still not have a full grasp of what is going on. I think that the "policy" (official, stated, un-stated, consensus, per se, what-have-you) should be to keep the current standard, however unstandard it is.

So: Keep (or rename) all United States cities named by CITY, STATE. Even if this means that American cities do not follow the world standard; I think few other countries have 33 Springfields or 25 Fairviews; London (disambiguation) links to only three geographical areas in GB, and Paris (disambiguation) links to only the one famous French location—the rest are all outside of France. —ScouterSig 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible minimalist solution

Does it meet the intent of everyone to simply replace the current convention line in the "Use common names of persons and things" with the entire "guideline in a nutshell" text from the linked Rationale and specifics: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)? This appears to be a minimal-disturbance change that would clarify any perceived conflict between the two pages. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be a reasonable way to implement Option 2, if indeed it were supported. But since we haven't even started the voting yet, we have no way of knowing. --Serge 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is not a good idea to vote on such issues. This is presented as a false dichotomy between three different static phrasings. The wiki process suggests that we simply reword things as necessary to reach a compromise. (Radiant) 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• I support Scott's suggestion, and see a general consensus on it, here and elsewhere. Unless there are a large number of objections, let's do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• No objection from me. -Will Beback · † · 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Given that there is no apparent opposition and it would clarify a point that is causing problems, go for it. Lets see if it helps. If it turns out to end a lot of discussions, then we know it was a correct decision. Vegaswikian 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would support this, but can we insert "in English" to the nutshell; this is clear in the full texts, but needs to be included. Many of the most intense naming conflicts are between two different names used in languages other than English, and involve two sets of non-English mother-tongue editors. These can go on for ever without either side referring to English usage - see talk pages for Giorgio Orsini, Giulio Clovio and many others. Johnbod 09:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for that, which is on the policy page under the Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words header (which is the section header just preceding the section on common names on that page). Previous attempts at "merging" the "common names" principle/guideline with the "use English" principle/guideline (after they were separated quite some time ago) have failed. After following some of these "merge-or-not-merge" discussions (and being involved in some of these too), my general idea now is that it is best to consider them two separate principles, of equal validity of course. In other words, I wouldn't add "in English" to the "common names" nutshell, nor to the text of the related section of the policy, while it is in the nutshell/section of another guideline. --Francis Schonken 10:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how they can be "two separate principles, of equal validity". Are you saying that it would actually be a change to the policy to include "in English" in the nutshell? I can't see that is the case. Johnbod 10:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, first: neither WP:NC(CN) nor WP:UE are "policy" (they're guidelines). But further my consideration was only practical: WP:UE has many trappings (see e.g. WP:UE#Disputed issues). Currently WP:NC(CN) has no "disputed issues" (only well-described "exceptions", remember), I fear, as has been attempted before, that the WP:UE unresolved disputes would re-affect the Common Names guideline. Perhaps we could promote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) from "proposal" to "guideline", that would be one disputed issue less for WP:UE. Still another handful to go. When all these disputes are resolved, my remark is moot (but it isn't yet now). --Francis Schonken 11:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross referencing arguments

There is a similar debate going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations. English Subtitle 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Convention for genre terms/classes of works?

Recently the page "Alternate history (fiction)" was renamed "Alternate history fiction". Is there any convention for the right name to use here? Most people refer to the genre simply as "alternate history", but the "(fiction)" was originally added to distinguish it from terms for other nonfictional classes of works, like counterfactual history which is a more serious academic analysis of what-if questions in history, or Alternative history in histiography. Hypnosifl 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Buildings

Hello! I am going to translate some stubs about destroyed synagogues of Poland from PL Wiki and I want to ask if there is any naming convention regarding buildings and structures. I mean there are several "New Synagogues" and "Great Synagogues" etc. For example how about Wrocław New Synagogue, should it be moved to "New Synagogue, Wrocław", "New Synagogue (Wrocław)" or to "New Synagogue of Wrocław" ? Thank you. - Darwinek 12:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) has a "buildings" section. It didn't make it to the "guideline" stage though. Maybe revive it as a {{proposal}}, and add what you think to be the best solutions regarding synagogues (etc). --Francis Schonken 12:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:DAB, if the building is simply called "new synagogue", the most common disambiguation would be "New Synagogue (placename)". (Radiant) 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Afaik, there are more instances of the "<Name of building>, <Location>" variety, e.g. St Paul's Cathedral, London, Ontario (I like the ", Ontario" twist: saves the surprise to the end);
  • Also "<Name of building> of <Location>" exists, e.g. Tower of London (FYI, not in Ontario);
  • "of" can have several meanings, so also the construction "<Name of building> in <Location>" exists, e.g. Cathedral of Saint Paul in Saint Paul (using any of the other constructions would be silly and/or somewhat confusing here).
  • As you can see, there aren't many fixed rules, but I'd say that the "Location in front" construction (as in Wroclaw New Synagogue - hey, why isn't there a redirect from the diacritic-free version????) is one of the more exceptional ones. --Francis Schonken 14:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Argentinian or Argentine?

Heading says it all, really. I've come across articles and categories using both of these adjectival forms for Argentina. is there a specific preference, or is it a case of "people are Argentinian, things are Argentine" or similar? Grutness...wha? 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

According to British newspapers, UK Foreign Office guidance in the 1990s was to stop using Argentinian and to use Argentine instead. The reason given was that Argentine was considered more polite.--Toddy1 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

En dashes

Is is okay to use en dashes – in naming conventions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

A colon achieves a very similar effect but is much easier to type. A re-wording to avoid complicated punctuation would probably be in order in most cases. Was there a particular title you were thinking of? --Stemonitis 01:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates, presumably? I've seen articles where there's a date range in the title moved to the proper en-dash form in the past, with little complaint; I'm not sure if this is what's being asked, though. Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, A user moved a page just to replace a hyphen with an en-dash. Which should be used, though? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the page; we sort of need to know what we're talking about here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's always a good move. There needs to be either a hyphen in the page name itself, or in a redirect. That's what is easiest for someone to enter, and most likely to be entered, when using the "Go" button. That's also most likely the one someone will link to.

One of the biggest problems with en dashes is that they are some humungous number when it comes to the Unicode number used in sorting, if the sort key isn't fixed, On the other hand, the hyphen is number 45 decimal (2D hexadecimal), appearing not only before the uppercase English alphabet, but before the digits 0 to 9 as well. Gene Nygaard 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the editor who introduced the en dashes referred to here, in articles similar to 137th Street–City College (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) (originally "137th Street-City College (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line)"). I had figured that the dashes were more semantically correct than the hyphens, and it would all right as long as I left redirects containing hyphens. Even when the names had hyphens, the articles were typically displayed with dashes (using piped link syntax), so I supposed that it would save a little bit of typing. It's not really an issue though, I wouldn't mind reverting back to hyphens. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

En-dashes seem correct here (at least based on my reading of the CMoS); but it may be worthwhile to check what the official typography here looks like, (as I'm assuming that these are titles borrowed from the transportation service, and not just descriptive names). Kirill Lokshin 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-capitalized first letter???

Yeepers, five-ten minutes of searching, and I still can't find the appropriate tag for when an article should start out non-capitalized, but has to because of the Wiki software, i.e. the eXile. I know there is a tag line similar to 'This page starts with a capitalized letter due to software restrictions...' type thing, but I can't find it... MadMaxDog 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) is your friend. — mholland 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasting in the UK: Pres name or legal name?

Currently, WikiProject British TV Channels has a merger slated of Channel 3 (UK) into ITV. The former is the legal name from 1990 (heck, there's even ITV plc, which owns 11 of the 15 regional franchises of the network) and the latter is the pres name (heck, there's even ITV plc, which owns 11 of the 15 regional franchises of the network). To make things more complicated, the full name that is abbreviated as ITV is Independent Television. The policy says "use the legal name, or else the pres name". In this case, ITV will be a very likely search term as a pres name, whereas Channel 3 is the legal name. Even more complicating is that someone would need to make a decision about the meaty ITV (disambiguation) if ITV was merged into Channel 3 (UK): move it to ITV proper or make ITV a redirect to Channel 3 (UK)? Even worse, Channel 3 proper is a disambiguation page, and another long one at that. We can't merge the two disambiguation pages on one entry each. Could you get that project straightened up a bit? TRKtvtce 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC), from British TV Channels parent WP:TVS

Bianchi motorcycles

Have I done the right thing incorporating them into "Bianchi (bicycle)" or should I have created a separate "Bianchi (motorcycle)"? Bianchi also made cars from 1900 to 1939 (no article). (Autobianchi, a three manufacturer consortium, are an offshoot from 1955.) I have not found a guide to vehicle article naming conventions (?). Seasalt 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Full capitalization of band names

There is currently a discussion/survey whether or not the article "KISS (band)" is to be moved to "Kiss (band)" and in how far a certain section of the naming conventions (namely WP:NC#Album titles and band names) and the manual of style regarding trademarks (WP:MOS-TM) apply in this particular case. I am writing this in the the hopes of getting some input at aforementioned discussion by people who deal with these kind of issues all the time. - Cyrus XIII 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We need more talking about stuff like iPod and eBay. 205.157.110.11 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Burma v. Myanmar

I would like to receive input on whether using "Burma/Myanmar" is fine in naming a Wikiproject, or whether one alternative is better than the other. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Burma/Myanmar#Project_name. Thank you.--Hintha 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When the most common name is incorrect or inaccurate

This policy exhorts us to "use the most common name" for an article. What happens when the most common name is, to put it bluntly, wrong? For instance, L'Hôpital's rule is not the most common name for its subject: the most common name drops the diacritic. Rose Parade is much more common than Tournament of Roses Parade. Ivan the Terrible is much more common than Ivan IV of Russia. In each case, I think the situation is fine as it stands - the articles don't belong at the "slangier" names, even though those names are more common. Is there any policy that supports using the "more correct" name? If not, can we make one? ^L_Wizard @ 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on naming to avoid Norfolk Island Pine or Wollemi Pine (neither of which are "true pines"), but I can't find the full conversation right now. I think that decision relied on a guideline somewhere. The conversation I recall may have been about one of those, and used the other in the argument - I don't recall. Sorry. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Talk:Wollemia, we find a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it, which states "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative". --Stemonitis 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You really don't want to rely on this discussion for anything. In fact both trees belong to Division: Pinophyta, Class: Pinopsida, and Order: Pinales and I suspect that the fallback to scientific names was an attempt at appeasement. By saying they're not pines in one place then listing they ARE Pinophyta, Pinopsida and Pinales in the taxobox, no one has gained. In the case of KP Botany 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sporting events/venues

Is there a policy on the naming of sports events and venues? There are many questions running around in my head, such as:

• Do we use names that contain sponsor names?
• Do we just use the official name?
• Do we use the most common name in everyday use?
• Do we use historical names?

Hopefully these issues have already been addressed somewhere on Wikipedia. GK1 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Organizations (such as political parties) (proposed change)

I would like to propose changing the wording for Organizations (such as political parties). The current wording is:

Convention: For articles on organizations (like political parties) the general rule applies. That means: Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Examples of the last are names of organizations in India, Ireland, Israel, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Quebec, Sri Lanka (English is or was an official language in most of these countries, which led to the general use of the native name) as well as some in Spain (Batasuna), Indonesia (Golkar), Russia (Yabloko and Rodina), Republic of China (Taiwan) (Kuomintang) and Cambodia (Khmer Rouge).

Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

The issue I have is with this part: unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. This seems to contradict the spirit and intent of the use English policy which is to give greater weight to English translations, not to treat Enlish and non-English on equal ground and just go with whichever is the most common. But that's what this part is saying. And, it is used as a basis to maintain certain articles at their non-English names, even when the English name is commonly used. For example, see the current opposition to moving Médecins Sans Frontières to Doctors without Borders at Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières.

I propose changing the above part to: unless the English form is not commonly used (in any English dialect) to refer to the topic. Thus, I'm proposing this section be changed to say:

Convention: For articles on organizations (like political parties) the general rule applies. That means: Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article unless the English form is not commonly used (in any English dialect) to refer to the topic. Examples ... (the rest remains unchanged from the current version).

Support? Any objections? Other comments? --Serge 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If a non-English name is common in English use, what's the problem with using it? The fact that it is widely used in English should be enough to show that it won't cause barriers to understanding. -- Visviva 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Even arbitrary meaningless terms are useful as names of topics for those who are familiar with the topic and use it regularly (there are a plethora of examples from the fields of medicine, law and engineering alone). But when the term is in English, it is more quickly grasped and understood by those who are less familiar with the topic. This is why English names are given preference in Wikipedia. But they still have to be commonly used to refer to the topic, though not necessarily more commonly used than a non-English name. At least that's my understanding. But as a big proponent of use the most common name, I might support getting rid of WP:UE. But as long as WP:UE remains the the convention/policy of Wikipedia, then this current wording is in conflict. --Serge 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"National Socialism" is a commonly used English term used to refer to "Nazism". Therefore your proposal would necessitate a move from Nazism to National Socialism, which is obviously wrong. — coelacan talk — 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect and missing the entire point. Nazi and Nazism are standard English words found in any standard English dictionary. The majority of English words are derived from foreign languages. But at some point they become English. Nazi is one of those words. Medicine is one of those words. Médecins is not. Sans is. Frontières is not. Médecins Sans Frontières is not. I hope you see and appreciate the distinction between English words derived from foreign words, and non-English words. --Serge 06:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction, but it is special pleading to say that Nazi is a loan word while Médecins Sans Frontières is not a loan phrase, even though Médecins Sans Frontières is predominantly used (as a loan) in British English. Presence in an English dictionary does not necessarily make a word English. English dictionaries include "Führer" (as a primary spelling, not even as a secondary spelling), a word which by your standard is not English because "there are letters in the current name that aren't even in the English language alphabet".[3] Now, I'm happy to argue that Führer is English by honorary induction, but if that umlauted "u" doesn't count against it then an accented "e" or two don't count against Médecins Sans Frontières. (Other articles affected by your change besides Führer would include Luftwaffe, Abwehr, Bundeswehr, Académie française, Glasnost, manga, and dōjinshi, among countless others.) Even though WP:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer, you are ill-advisedly trying to predicate the internal Wikipedia debate over article naming upon the very lively and controversial external debate over what is and is not English yet. Because English does not have its own equivalent of the Académie française, there is no clearcut point at which words or phrases leap from being "non-English words" to "English words derived from foreign words". (And you're yet again cordially invited to stop playing the I hope you can understand the difference game; it's beginning to reflect rather poorly upon you.) The debate over what constitutes English is quite vigorous, and the distinction lies across a spectrum rather than a line. The current language of WP:NAME saves us from having to drag that debate over to Wikipedia, by making a common sense exception for instances in which "the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form", so that prevalent and recognizable usage can be utilized when the status of "loan word or foreign" is still debated. I would rather have our own internal policy allow us to trump contemporary external debate where possible, rather than force us to drag yet another external debate into the sphere of this encyclopedia; indeed, I believe this is the very purpose of all Wikipedia policy. It is also a dubious assertion that the WP:NAME policy violates the spirit of the WP:UE guideline, since UE also states: "Borderline cases ... One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article." It appears that this is a reflection in UE of NAME's "unless the native form is more commonly recognized/used", which is stated twice in this policy. It would be a dubious assertion even if NAME did violate the spirit of UE, because UE is a guideline and is thus subordinate to the NAME policy; if they disagreed then UE should be brought into line with NAME, not vice versa. I'll try to step back from being a wikilawyer for a moment now. What is the intended purpose of the NAME policy as it now stands? To reflect widespread usage of language and allow this encyclopedia to exercise common sense (confer WP:IAR) rather than be tied to a literal reading of a usually-but-not-always useful translation guideline. Is this intended purpose beneficial to the encyclopedia? Yes, when it allows unsurprising usage of common foreign terms. Would your proposed change lose the current benefits of the NAME policy? Above, I have argued that it would lose those benefits, by forcing Wikipedia to constantly engage in a subtle lexicographical debate that is often not decisive among language experts and is unlikely to be illuminating among amateurs. — coelacan talk — 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Serge. From a strict logic standpoint, moving Médecins Sans Frontières to [[Doctors without Borders]] would not be supported by the policy as you have written it. The controlling conditional is unless the English form is not commonly used (in any English dialect), the key word being any. That is, Médecins Sans Frontières appears to be strongly favored in at least one (i.e., "any") dialect, namely UK English--which might make Doctors without Borders uncommon in the UK. I point this out only because I think what's written does not support the idea that you support, since common use in one or more dialects would falsify unless the English form is not commonly used (in any English dialect). Or maybe that is what you intended? --Ishu 07:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ishu. For the record, my intent is to mean use the English translation unless there is no English dialect in which it is commonly used. I did NOT mean, use the English translation unless there is at least one English dialect in which it is not commonly used.. The point is if the English translation is commonly used to refer to the subject of the article at least somewhere in the English world, then it should be the name of the article; that the English translation should not be used if it is not commonly used to refer to the subject anywhere in the English world. How best to say this unambiguously and succinctly? --Serge 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that if at least one English dialect uses the translated name, then use the translated name, right? If so, maybe that's the way to phrase it. --Ishu 06:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, the use of diacritical remarks, etc. in certain words that do not appear in the alphabet of the standard English dictionary does not alone mean that the word is non-English. But when a name with such a word is used to refer to the subject of an article, and there is another English translation that is commonly used (in at least one English dialect) to refer to that subject, then the latter should be used as the title. Bottom line: When choosing the title is a choice between two names of which one is English and the other not, if they are to be given equal weight (whichever is most commonly used should be used), then why do we even have WP:UE? --Serge 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do we even have WP:UE? In order to explain and elaborate upon WP:NAME#Use English words, just like it says there on the page: "Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)". That's why there are guidelines such as UE attached to policies such as NAME, becuase the policy would be huge if we included all the details on this page. Another question is why does UE say "One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article"? In order to reiterate, for those who are determined not to see it, that the point of NAME and UE is not to force usage of English when the foreign terms are more likely to be expected by a reader. So why bother having UE in the first place? I suspect it is so that readers of the English encyclopedia are not surprised by seeing Николай II instead of Nicholas II. Even though Николай II gets 756,000 ghits while while Nicholas II gets 613,000, Николай II is not used in English, so would be surprising to any English reader. This is not true of all foreign terms, however, so readers' expectations are given priority over strict adherence to English. Readers would expect to see Luftwaffe before German Air Force, so it makes sense to stick with Luftwaffe. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to be useful, not orthodox. And perhaps you simply have not had time to reply in full, but you are ignoring my point above, that your proposal would drag Wikipedia into a subtle, external, lexicographical debate that our current policy allows us to trump and ignore so that we can get on to other things, like working on content rather than worrying about orthodoxy. — coelacan talk — 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for possibly being dense, but your Николай II example does not answer the question of why we have the UE policy at all. If we are to use the "most common" or "most likely to be expected", regardless of whether it's foreign or not, then that's what the policy should say. If it's only about Latin vs. non-Latin alphabets, then it should say that. But it doesn't say that. Yes, of course we should take into account what would be the least surprising. But that's not meant to be the only consideration when deciding between using a foreign language term and the English translation of that term. The point of UE must be to give preference to the English translation, even when the foreign term is more common, even when the foreign term might be less surprising to some. Again, otherwise, why even have it?

As to your final point, I don't see why the change I propose is any more likely to "drag Wikipedia into a subtle, external, lexicographical debate" than does the current policy. In fact, the lack of clarity of what to do in the current policy, in those cases where the foreign term is most common in at least on dialect, but the English translation is also common (but not necessarily most common in all English dialects) is what foster debates. --Serge 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The UE guideline (you keep saying policy for some reason) contains its own caveat, so think of it as "Use English (Usually)" if that helps. Only if one walks in the door with the a priori assumption that we darn well ought to be using only English would one necessarily come to the conclusion that the only purpose of the UE guideline must be to prefer English in all cases. Without that a priori assumption, there are other ways to understand reason for the guideline. "All other things being equal, use English" is a reason. There are perfectly good arguments for titling the article Николай II, even in the English encyclopedia, as that's the name the man used. Without UE, we might use it. So the UE guideline exists to say that on the English encyclopedia, we expect English speaking readers, and so we should use the name least surprising to most English speaking readers. In most cases, that's an English name, such as Nicholas II. It's not always the case, however, as the majority of English speaking readers are accustomed to Médecins Sans Frontières, but again in this case we are using the title least surprising to most English speaking readers. And that's why the UE exists, as well as why it has its caveat. I'll try to explain again why reason your proposal is more problematic than the current NAME policy. The current policy allows us to merely decide, in broad utilitarian terms, what is the least surprising to the most readers. While such decisions may of course be controversial, they are within the reach of the amateur to make an informed judgment upon. Your proposal, on the other hand, would force us to decide what actually is and is not English, a debate that often, for any given word or phrase, splits the small community of linguistic experts that deal with these things, and is out of the reach of amateurs. Your proposal still rests upon controversy, but it's controversy that most of us cannot even touch, whereas the current policy at least involves controversy that we can all sink our teeth into. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

English or Non-English article title

Haven't noticed if this subject, is on this page. Should English Wikipedia article title be ALL English? or should there be exceptions for Foreign names (diacritics)? GoodDay 02:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are currently plenty of exceptions. The section directly above this one is a debate about this topic; currently there are some editors hating on diacritics and umlauts, but see Talk:Dürer's Rhinoceros, where that article achieved Featured Article and Main Page status in October 2006 with its umlauted ü in the title. This policy currently states "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form" so you should be arguing about what is more commonly recognized by the majority of potential readers rather than what constitutes English or not. — coelacan talk — 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form" is very dangerous, as it is widely used on Wikipedia. Every kind of "Prefer the most commonly recognized form..." must be banned on a serious encyclopedia. An encyclopedia must always chose the most correct form and more generally the most correct facts, rather than the most common form or facts. An good example is about Emperor Shōwa of Japan. He is officially known as Emperor Shōwa in every official texts, in every official japanese governmental documents, in every Japanese texts (for example on his article on Japanese Wikipedia). On English Wikipedia, it's even written "The use of his personal name instead can be considered overly familiar, or almost derogatory." But some consider his personnal name Hirohito is more "commonly recognized", so the article must be named Hirohito. It's a good example where an incorrect form is preferred to a correct form only because the incorrect form is more common. An encyclopedia must set out correct facts, not received ideas. It's made to teach the reader, not to back up what he thinks he already knows. Švitrigaila 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between English and Non English has no purpose for most of proper names. It makes sense only for common names and other parts of speach (prefer for example Cat to Felis; Plane to Avion; Trams in Melbourne to Tramway de Melbourne; Trams in Saint-Étienne to Tramway de Saint Etienne; Maltese pound to Maltese lira, and so on) and for certain proper names that have a translation in English (prefer Italy to Italia; Germany to Deutschland; Rome to Roma; Christopher Columbus to Cristoforo Colombo; Charles XV of Sweden to Karl XV of Sweden; Charles XVI Gustav of Sweden to Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden).

Proper names that have a translation are very few. They are mostly the names of countries or regions, the names of some important cities, the names of some far past historical figures and the names of christians monarchs (or some religious leaders with a monarch-like name, for example the popes). The concept of translation absolutely doesn't exist for most proper names. So the concept of English name makes no sense for them at all. The name of the French president is Jacques Chirac. It's not his "English name" because he has no "English name", he's not English. It's his French and only name. Just as his predecessor's only name was François Mitterrand, and not Francois Mitterrand which is on no account more "English" than François Mitterrand.

Some names must be translittered or transcribed when they are normally written with a non-Latin alphabet. It's why we write Vladimir Putin instead of Владимир Путин. However it concerns only non-Latin alphabets, never the Latin alphabet. And diacritics don't make a non-Latin alphabet out of the Latin alphabet. Besides English language admits diacritics from foreign languages (see Charlotte Brontë, John C. Frémont, Elisabeth Röhm...)

I think the Naming conventions must be rewritten in order to make clear what means English names and to stress it can apply only to common names and to (the rare) translated proper names. And to explain that most proper names must be written in their original tongue, possibly with a translitteration or transcription only if their original tongue doesn't use the Latin alphabet. Švitrigaila 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I peaked in on discussions about 'Diacritics' in the English Wikipedia. What I've found are 'lack of consensus', continued disagreement, bio pages being moved, then moved again. Perhaps an Arbitration Committee Ruling on Diacritics in English Wikipedia article titles, is the only way to end the instability. GoodDay 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess my main concern, is lack of clarity. On the usage of 'Diacritic'. GoodDay 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, Švitrigaila. I was only pointing out what the current language of the policy says. — coelacan talk — 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If we can agree to a guideline here (concerning diacritics), do we all agree, that this 'Naming conventions' article should have authority over all other 'Naming conventions'. There's simply too many 'Naming conventions' concerning Diacriticals. GoodDay 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not all agree about anything, sorry. But seriously, what is the issue? Are there conflicting conventions regarding diacritics and umlauts? Can you show me where the contradictions are? — coelacan talk — 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Švitrigaila. If there is a commonly used, and correct, translation of a name, then use it. Removing umlauts, diacritics or Latin characters not used in English (such as å, ä and ö) is not a translation, and should not even be an alternative. If the person or place has a name in the native language that is written with Latin characters, and the person or place name has not got an English translation, then use the native name including umlauts, diacritics and other "special" characters. – Elisson • T • C • 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned if diacritics & other special characters are used in English Wikipedia articles titles or not. I just want us, to have a guideline (on this page), to address these 'Diacriticals' issues. Do we use them or not? 1)If a guideline is to use them, (all bio articles title -where needed-) use them. 2) If a guideline is not to use them, don't use them. Whatever we decide, should be applied to ALL bio article titles on English Wikipedia. GoodDay 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I already showed you the example of Dürer's Rhinoceros, which made it to "Today's Featured Article" on the Main Page. Therefore, you may use them, unless the policy changes in the future. — coelacan talk — 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Placing the policy (example: Durer's Rhinoceros (sorry don't have diacritical keys), as the guideline on this page. I'm going to add these changes (by moving NHL Euro/French Canadian bio articles) to Diacritics on article title (where needed). You guys, may have to back me up. Using the guideline of this page, for all NHL Euro/French Canadian bio article titles. GoodDay 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have an agreement. PS- if this guideline, isn't heeded, the next step- Arbitration Commitee. GoodDay 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus reached- guideline to allow usage of diacritics (where needed) in Bio article titles & content. I've added the new guideline to this page. GoodDay 00:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't move bio articles to 'Diacritical' versions. I don't have diacriticals on my keyboard. GoodDay 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, no. You do not add a self-contradictory clause to the page based on 5 or 6 people agreeing. If the current rule is to use the most common, then adding a blanket "use diacritics" rule in direct contradiction to that existing rule is the height of bad form. --tjstrf talk 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I confess, my main concern is NHL Euro/French Canadian bio articles titles. A current (soon to be closing) Rfc on Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format is being held. Already the legitimacy of it is in question. It's been argued WikiProject have no authority, over its relating articles. GoodDay 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, Rfc at that page can't be closed (under current Rfc guidelines), until a consensus is reached/dispute is resolved. GoodDay 00:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm thowing in the towel. I've tried (in this new year), to bring about a compromise for all Euro/French Canadian bio articles (then included All bio articles). See my talk page conversations. There seems to be no end to this 'Schism'. Want to reach me? contact me at my discussion page. GoodDay 02:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. 28 minutes of silence means consensus now? This means I can never sleep again. — coelacan talk — 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's only one way to resolve ALL Diacritics dispute at English Wikipedia. Get a ruling from the Arbitration Committee. GoodDay 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language titles

Hi there. I had a question about a week and a half ago at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) which never received a response; would someone mind taking a look and responding? —ShadowHalo 11:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Any help would still be much appreciated; so far I've only gotten one confused response. ShadowHalo 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The symbol dispute at Talk:I ♥ Huckabees Again

May I refer to Talk:I ♥ Huckabees#Requested move 2, in which the naming issue has been in dispute again, due to the following reasons:

1. The producer's inconsistant use of the name (I ♥ Huckabees vs I Heart Huckabees); and
2. Whether the use of the heart symbol constitutes a exception of the "symbols generally discouraged" rule.

Please vote and comment as appropriate. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 12:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll ended as no consensus.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

special characters

The current paragraph reads:

Separate accent-like and/or quote-like characters (including, but not limited to `, ʻ, ʾ, ʿ, ᾿, ῾, ‘, “, ’, ”, c, combining diacritical marks combined with a "space" character,...) should be avoided in page names. The only exceptions to that are the ' (single quote) character, which should however be used *sparingly* (e.g. rather Baath party than Ba'ath party), and printable characters in redirect pages. See also Avoid non alpha-numeric characters used only for emphasis below.

The first character listed is the grave accent (`), which is not a special character, and is actually recommended per the Arabic MOS for transliteration of the ayin character. The use of the grave accent and the apostrophe in Arabic romanization are required for standardization, and there are no printability issues with them. I'm going to update this page accordingly. Cuñado - Talk 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The grave accent is on the QWERTY keyboard underneath the tilde, left of the 1. On the AZERTY it's on the 7 key. Cuñado - Talk 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no usual other way to get the ` on (my) AZERTY keyboard than by "AltGr + £/µ" followed by "space". This is a keyboard somewhat similar to the image below:

Anyway, no ` possible by the 7 key (nor with "7" and any other additional key(s), I tried). And no standard way to get the same result on every AZERTY keyboard, see image below, which would probably produce the ` by "AltGr + 7" followed by "space" (but I'm not sure about that). Anyway no *standard* way to produce an ` on AZERTY keyboards (differs by country/software settings), and no way to produce it with less than two keys, probably not even with less than three keys on any AZERTY.

--Francis Schonken 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any guidelines or policy stating that any ASCII characters are non-printable (besides =), or that a character must be achievable in under 3 strokes of the AZERTY keyboard. The AZERTY keyboard is small minority (in my opinion), and not typically used by English speakers. People using it should be familiar with its quirks. The grave accent, along with the apostrophe are standard English characters, and part of the international English keyboard layout.[4]

I don't have one, so I can't try it, but according to this page, you just add a grave accent, then hit space. To get a grave accent, I'm assuming there's a function key, along with the 7. On the black keyboard image, it appears to be left of the ENTER key, above the up arrow. Cuñado - Talk 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• ` is a printable character (in the sense of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Printability), no problem there. I never said printability was a problem for this character.
• http://french.about.com/library/bl_faq_accents.htm explains no procedure for typing a separate ` on AZERTY keyboards, that whole page is written for QWERTY (hardware) keyboards. (note: French has the ` accent *only* on ù, è and à, which each have a separate precombined key. There is no use for a separate ` in French, so traditionally AZERTY keyboards (mechanical typewriters and the like) didn't even have a possibility to type `, and that's the reason why there's no general AZERTY standard way of typing it) Again, I suppose one needs at least three keys to type a separate ` on any AZERTY keyboard.
• Re. "On the black keyboard image, it appears to be left of the ENTER key, above the up arrow" - like I said, the only way to write a separate ` with that key is by using also the "AltGr" and "space" keys. Three keys in total.
• Re. "The AZERTY keyboard is small minority (in my opinion), and not typically used by English speakers" - Thanks for the compliment, but the minority of English speakers that would distinguish between ' and ` in transliteration of Arabic words in English is even smaller (for several reasons, most prominently because most English speakers would not use transliterations for Arabic words, but the usual English translations and romanizations of Arabic words they read and see in the majority of English texts they encounter, which usually never use `). There's no general "correctness" issue here either, there are several transliteration systems, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) chose a mixture of these (with an arbitrary dilution for what has been termed in that Wikipedia guideline - and probably only there - a "standard transliteration"), but there's no "official" in any sense, it all depends on the preferred transliteration system. --Francis Schonken 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't shown any guidelines insisting that characters on WP need to be typable in less than three strokes on an AZERTY keyboard. Résumé has the e accute, which takes three strokes on a QWERTY keyboard. You have no argument, and you obviously know nothing about Arabic transliteration/transcription/romanization. I don't need to argue the value of standardization of Arabic romanization, because that's for another page. The issue here is that you're using the difficulty of a French keyboard to assert your opinion for uses on the English Wikipedia, and apparently so that you can get a less-standardized form of Arabic romanization in article titles. On the most widely used English keyboard, the grave accent is one stroke, and it's an ASCII character that will work properly on a 1981 IBM PC. This policy is to avoid obscure special characters, especially strange unicode characters that don't display properly on IE browsers. Excluding the grave accent because it's an extra keystroke on a French keyboard is incredibly stupid. Cuñado - Talk 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. "You still haven't shown any guidelines insisting that characters on WP need to be typable in less than three strokes on an AZERTY keyboard", there are none, and that's not even an argument I would use. But since you proclaimed it was easy to type, no, it's not easy to type *in general*, and many people wouldn't even know how to produce the sign with their keyboard.

My main arguments are,

• There is no "official" standard that ` should be used for representing Arabic words in English;
• The difference between ` and ' would elude most English speakers;
• Since naming conventions (the way we name articles on English Wikipedia) are primarily about "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (see "This page in a nutshell" template under the policy template on Wikipedia:Naming conventions): it seems very unlikely that the majority of English speakers would even recognise ` (and see it is different from ' or ῾, depending on font, letter size, etc.) So, they wouldn't even know what to type when trying to type something which we'd try to make them believe is "correct", while it isn't (at least not in a general way, only within the limited scope of a limited number of transliteration systems, which are not universally followed).
• The previous discussion regarding the Okina character (which can be represented by many characters, among which ', but better `, and still even better ῾, which are the same characters we're talking about here), made it disappear from all article titles (although they're correctly represented in articles, and with ' or ` on some redirect pages, and mostly with ῾ in the body of articles). See the overview I gave at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Arabic). So we know what Wikipedians, most likely, would want regarding these characters. --Francis Schonken 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you are completely ignoring the Arabic MOS and two centuries of Arabic standardization in English, and you are insisting on your own aesthetic views. The discussion of whether or not the grave accent is acceptable in article titles is over. If you want to write an essay about Arabic standardization, start your own blog. Cuñado - Talk 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, NPA, concentrate on content, not on the messenger. I'm not ignoring anything, and my "aesthetic" views have nothing to do with it (on the contrary, æsthetically I prefer `).

The Arabic MoS (a guideline) is subject to the basic principles of the Naming conventions policy, which is primarily based on recognisability. --Francis Schonken 22:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Arabic MOS does not violate any of the NC "policies". The MOS incorporates the idea that Arabic words, names, and places can have a predominantly used, recognizable, English spelling, and when those cases exist, the suggestion is to use that spelling, and there are already guidelines for when to determine if such an English spelling exists. But there are tons of cases where there is no definable "English" way to romanize a given word. For example, Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib is currently using a bunch of dashes where there is no precedence to do so. It should be `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. Can you honestly say that knowledge of this individual is standard English? Is there an "English" way to transliterate his name? What about Muammar al-Gaddafi, there are over 30 ways to spell his name in English. The same reasoning you mentioned - that most people won't even notice the difference between ` and ' - is the same reasoning that I use to encourage using the correct version. If nobody notices anyway, why not be accurate and encyclopedic, using characters that are printable and easy to use. Cuñado - Talk 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And who decides what is the "correct" version, the next single-purpose editor with a theory of transliteration? There are four spellings evidenced at ‘Abdullah (name), and the article cited uses a fifth and links to a sixth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(@ Cunado:) Re. The Arabic MOS does not violate any of the NC "policies" - of course not, I never said so. The Arabic MoS currently says nothing about Naming Conventions, apart from a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic).

If you think Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib should be moved to `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib, then do so. If you think that would be a controversial move, then consult your fellow Wikipedians, for example by WP:RM.

(PS:) Oops, yes probably it would be a controversial move, it's about the only variation of the name you didn't yet try to move to ( to `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib, to `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib, to ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib, to ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib, to ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib), nor was the object of ample discussion or WP:RM at Talk:Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. And presumably all those previous variations were "correct" for some time (and now no longer, because suddenly `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib has become the only possible correct name). Yes, maybe we should better have a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) to stop such waste of resources (I mean, discussion time, move reverting, etc). --Francis Schonken 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That an Arabic name containing ` signs in the name of the entry would be more "encyclopedic" is your speculation, I've seen no corroboration for that. For example, I've not seen that sign used in titles of Britannica articles yet (nor in the printed version, nor in the on-line version - if you have any suggestions for names to check, I'd be glad to oblige).

Some examples,

• 'Abd al-Muttalib (grandfather of Muhammad) (Britannica)
• 'abd Allah ben 'abd AL-MUTTALIB (University of Kentucky website)
• `Abd Allah ben `Abd al-Muttalib (American Pictures website)
• 'Abd al-Muttalib (Qur'anic Studies website)

No, there's no general pattern that ` would be more "encyclopedic" for page names in English, as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Plurals revisited

I was bold and tried to sanction the existing practice regarding plural vs. singular usage. I'm not sure if my choice of wording is clear enough: the bottom line is, "use common sense"; some titles just don't make much sense in singular. Duja► 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That being said, there are few articles regarding ethno-religious groups whose titles bother me: notably, Jew and Arab (along with few others). Is it just me, or...? I can't help but to read those titles as awkwardly specifying a species of something rather than those groups as a collectivity: while one can pick e.g. one Zebra to discuss all Zebras, such an approach seems highly inappropriate for human beings. I'd like to try a WP:RM for these articles (one by one, not collectively—I learned the lesson bitterly) but I'd like to hear few opinions first. Those two topics in particular are fairly hot... Duja► 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(After the revert) Is there a problem? The addition was merely meant to clarify and sanction the existing practice, as some editors have apparently read it too literally [5] [6]. It was:

Exceptions include the names of ethnic groups (Poles, Greeks), entities which are practically always referred to as a collectivity, e.g. Hermite polynomials, Arabic numerals, International relations, as well as articles which describe collections of items (but are not lists as such, which have different naming conventions), such as English verbs, Ministries of Japan - see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/archive5#SOME article titles should be plural.

Duja► 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that common sense has prevailed in that Poles is so much better than Pole, because it may mean something else, and the same with Greeks over Greek ... however Jew/Jews and Arab/Arabs I can't get too excited about since both are used and it is difficult to find an alternative meaning for either. What about "Exceptions include the names of certain ethnic groups where the singular has an alternate meaning"? Abtract 15:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Poles" is a bad example indeed, because it has to be at plural for disambiguation purposes. But there are Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, Germans. Browsing through subcats of Category:Ethnic groups, however, it turns out I rushed a bit, as it's not so universal practice as I thought: there is also "Celt", "Eskimo"... Here's a very rough estimate of distribution:

• ~50% are at plural ("Fooians")
• ~20% are at "Foo people" (where there is no good plural or ambiguity arises, e.g. Chinese people, French people)
• Some are at singular (more precisely, collective noun) as they should be (e.g. Inuit, Cherokee), as the plural doesn't exist or is cumbersome.
• Some are at an arbitrary singular (e.g. Jew, Arab, Celt).

I have a problem only with the latest group: the singular title of those articles to me looks like a title of a pamphlet ("What is a Jew?") and I have a subconscious fear upon seeing such title that the first sentence would start like "Jew is an insolent, greedy creature...". My rule of thumb is: if the first word of the first article's sentence should naturally be plural, use the plural title (though I'm immediately refuted by sentences in Arab and Muslim). There is some justification in the approach that e.g. Celt or Arab as such are not homogenous ethno-linguistic groups, but rather "cover" terms for a variety of groups. Still, I feel uneasy with such titles: the articles describe human collectivities rather than properties of any given instance of group member. Duja► 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Duja. There's no particular reason to avoid changing over to Arabs, Celts, and Jews, but I think you're right that there are some reasons to avoid keeping the titles as they are currently. — coelacan talk — 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention for the recent storm in Europe

There are some quarrels going on over at Talk:Kyrill (storm). Some editors want the article moved to a more generic title, whilst others want to keep it at a title including the storm name. The problem seems to be that there is no "official" English name, but the German language areas and Eastern Europe have adopted the name "Kyrill" that was issued to the storm by a Berlin university and is in common use in the local media. This is a borderline case of the "Use English" rules, I think, and comments would be appreciated at the article's talk page. --doco (☏) 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It may well be more appropriate to take it to the section discussing this on the relevant wikiproject as it is a broader issue affecting all storms of this class.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disaster article names as adopted by the Disaster management WikiProject

The WikiProject Disaster management has adopted a naming convention under the project's guidelines, and I'd like to see that included in the official policy of naming conventions. The text of the convention as listed on the project's page is: A naming convention for such articles is also definitely required. It has been decided that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. To illustrate the point with an example, the article October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash was recently renamed to 2006 New York City plane crash" If there are no objections, I'll add this to the appropriate area after giving a few days for comments. Akradecki 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything, this should probably be mentioned at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Other events. I'm not sure we should adopt the "<<year>> <<place>> <<event>>" format as guideline for all disasters (anyway, surely not for all types of non-recurrent events). --Francis Schonken 09:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Current counter-examples:

• Pan Am Flight 103 - should that be changed to 1988 Lockerbie aircraft crash?
• 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens - should that be renamed to 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption?
• Kyrill (storm): there was some renaming discussion at Talk:Kyrill (storm) and other places: many names were proposed, but I didn't see 2007 Europe storm among them, although there was a proposal to merge with 2007 North American ice storm (however, without proposal for the name of the article after merging). Besides, gives the impression there won't be any more of these storms for the remainder of 2007 (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball).
• Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event - should that be renamed to circa 65500000 BC Unknown Location meteor impact although not all scientists agree? --Francis Schonken 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, yes, no and no. Like the other Event entries, there are exceptions. As for Pan Am, it already follows the aviation convention. Kyrill follows storm naming conventions, and well, there's still a big debate over the C-T theories, though I appreciate your humor. This proposal is more aimed at standardizing titles that don't really have a guideline at this point, and so end up all over the map. Akradecki 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, err, why should Pan Am Flight 103 follow aviation convention (whatever that is... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) says nothing on the topic) and 2006 New York City plane crash not?

Afaik there is no Wikipedia:Naming conventions (storms), but note that there is a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) (saying nothing about dates in the names of articles on events, apart from listing September 11, 2001 attacks as an example - not following the new "disaster" ideas).

Also, I don't get your line of argument: if everything would have been covered by other existing guidelines &c, we wouldn't need anything new, would we?

Anyway, I added a paragraph to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Other events, and think that should do for the time being, until a more definite consensus (and willingness to mass-adapt established pagenames) would emerge. --Francis Schonken 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the naming conventions don't say anything on commercial flight incidents...I had missed that. There is wide, though not clearly documented, consensus amongst project members for this format for airline incidents, and you can see clear evidence for this in the List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. I will pursue clarifying this in the guidelines, however. To answer your question, though, as to why it doesn't apply to the NY crash article, is that that incident included a private plane, so it is not possible to have a title with an airline name and flight number. The point of establishing my proposal in the guidelines is that aviation convention doesn't officially address private aircraft, although the trend is to follow the proposed disaster project guideline (see, for example, 1996 New Hampshire Learjet crash and 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. Stay tuned.... Akradecki 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mention earthquakes as an area where there is no established naming convention, but there seems to be an informal convention (unless another name takes hold) to use the <<year>> <<place>> <<event>> naming format, even when only one big earthquake took place at that location (in practice, most locations with big earthquakes are likely to have had them in the past and will have them in the future, so the year is commonly added to the name). See Category:Earthquakes for many, many examples of earthquake articles titled using this format. Note that this is not a name for the earthquake (there is often no recognised name for an earthquake), but merely a convenient way to refer to the earthquake and distinguish it from other earthquakes, as well as conveying the most important information (location and date) in the title. I think this sort of naming convention should be adopted in cases where (a) there is no 'common name' and (b) where there is no established naming convention. Also, the caveat should be added that in later years a common name can take hold, and the article should then be moved when it becomes clear that most people refer to it by that name. Here are some examples of names. See if you recognise what the article might be about before you click on the link: Good Friday Earthquake (no indication of location), Great Alaska Earthquake (no indication of year), 1964 Alaska earthquake (doesn't indicate that it was a 'Great' earthquake), Kamchatka earthquakes (no indication of year), Great Chilean Earthquake (no indication of year), 1960 Valdivia earthquake (location unclear), Great Lisbon Earthquake (date not given), 1755 Lisbon earthquake (much clearer), and so on, and so on.

Names for earthquakes are a mess. Standardisation along these lines, with redirects from alternative names, is really, really needed. There is also discussion at Talk:Basel earthquake (and a requested move) looking at the advantages and disadvantages of having the page at either 1356 Basel earthquake (gives year) or Basel earthquake (gives no indication of the year). Carcharoth 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Other examples: Dover Straits earthquake of 1580, 1988 Spitak earthquake, Spitak Earthquake, Leninakan Earthquake (yes, that's the same earthquake under a different name). There really is no standard way of naming earthquakes. The only de facto standard I've found is variants on this year-location-earthquake one. Carcharoth 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• See above: "I added a paragraph to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Other events"
• I don't agree to copying only this paragraph recently added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), mainly for two reasons:
  • It is the most recent addition to the rules governing inclusion of dates and numbers in article names: it is far from the most stable guidance to be found in the elaborate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events section (and subsections);
  • In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) the impression shouldn't be given that for events in general the "date first" format has prominence (there has been lots of discussion about the position of dates in page names on events, leading to the complex rules at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events) - quoting *only* the rule on disasters, creates the wrong impression that various formats with dates in other places for events would be disfavored. Said otherwise: or, copy all the rules (showing dates and numbers in various places for events, disastrous or not); or, don't copy any of the recommendations of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events seemingly favoring one of the ways to position a date in a page name. --Francis Schonken 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think a big point being missed here is that a lot of the above is prescriptive, when what has actually happened here is proscriptive, in that a large group of articles have developed common sense titles in the absence of any definitive naming convention. This is actually mirroring how such systems develop in the real world. The question then becomes one of whether Wikipedia should attempt to identify a convention and retrospectively apply it, or whether it should accept the names that have been widely used as the titles of Wikipedia articles? Your reply said nothing about the earthquake examples I gave. Do you have an opinion on that? Carcharoth 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, "I added a paragraph to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Other events" - whether that paragraph is descriptive, prescriptive or proscriptive, I don't know, but the guidance asked for *is currently in an active guideline*. I'd try that guidance out for some time, the way I added it (with a rather tentative formulation, as you'd be able to see). If the guidance leads to article naming converging in the indicated direction, and no further adjustments seem necessary, it could maybe formulated somewhat more obligatory, but I'd not run ahead before the current way of putting it is accepted. --Francis Schonken 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)

There are serious problems with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). The title implies that it is a guideline for naming conventions for events in general. In fact, from the way the page is written, and the introductory sentence ("The following guidelines apply to events and activities such as military conflicts and terrorist incidents."), it is obvious that the guideline was really written to resolve editing conflicts over the names of, well, military conflicts and terrorist incidents. In particular, the heated debate aroused by the words massacre and terrorist. Obviously, these are only partcular sorts of events. It says nothing about how to name other events (both current and historical), apart from two links at the end to the Military History WikiProject naming convention, and the subsection of 'Naming conventions (numbers and dates)'. The proper title for this guideline should be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (massacres and terrorist incidents). And a much more wide-ranging guideline should be at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) instead. Carcharoth 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Characterising that as "serious problems" seems a bit over the top to me. Feel free to propose additions to that guideline at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events). --Francis Schonken 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing additions. I'm proposing a rename. I'm amazed that the guideline title says it covers events, when it looks like a very small start to what should be a much longer guideline. 'Events' does not equal 'massacres and terrorist incidents'. The guideline seems to be equating the two. I'll add a section to show you what I mean. Carcharoth 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For renaming, as for rewriting, some sort of community approval would be appropriate. It is an *active* guideline, and people might expect to find it, err, where it is now, with the content that was approved after a community process. --Francis Schonken 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And since the considerations would apply, for example, to the Holocaust, which is neither military nor a terrorist incident, the complaint here is not with the name of the guideline, but with its introduction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to change that, and Francis reverted me. I've asked him to contribute to the discussion here. Would you have time to add your thoughts there as well? Anyone coming late to this thread should head over there as well, as that seems to be the best place to discuss all this. I agree that my initial rename suggestion was not quite right. I've now suggested Wikipedia:Naming conventions (controversial event names), which seems to me to sum the content up better than the current name of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Carcharoth 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence

From the intro:

The naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent.

This is bad grammar; but it is worse policy. It is even now being used on Talk:St. Florian's Gate, to defend the position that "I wrote the article; I get to name it". A reference, as with Anglo-American naming disputes, to a previous long period of stability, would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The "previous long period of stability" sounds fine to me. As long as no better name is uncovered in the meantime. It could just be that no-one got around to spotting the problem before. If there is a clear-cut case for a rename, then that always takes precedent. Carcharoth 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

The nutshell template was excessively wordy, so I cut it down, but it seems to have grown right back. So I cut it again piece by piece, explaining each step, so others can see that each change had no substantive effect on the meaning. The nutshell must be brief, so it requires more frugal word smithing than the main body, and each word needs to carry significant weight. Words that did not were dropped. Also, repeating a sentence from the main article almost verbatim is redundant and of little use. Dhaluza 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the nut grew right back again. I'm making another attempt at cutting it down to the nutshell. I disagree with Francis Schonken's edit comment - a nutshell is not policy; it's merely a terse summary of policy, and so it doesn't require consensus on the Talk page before editing it. If the wording of the nutshell is controversial enough that people disagree on its meaning, then it's not a proper nutshell. - Brian Kendig 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Dhaluza's second attempt at nutshell rewrite:

Nor do I agree with Brian Kendig's attempt:

I don't see anything compelling, and even less convincing in both Dhaluza's and Brian Kendig's explanations above, e.g.

repeating a sentence from the main article almost verbatim is redundant and of little use.

No that's not the way this has been approached thus far, the last discussion we had about that (as I linked to in one of the edit summaries), ended in keeping the *verbatim* copy of the third paragraph of the intro in the nutshell. For reasons, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 9#Nutshell. I stress *verbatim*, not even "almost verbatim".
Another example of uncompelling, unconvincing reasoning:

[...] it doesn't require consensus on the Talk page before editing it

That is a WP:POINT argument. Nothing needs necessarily consensus on the Talk page. The consensus can be understood. But policy pages need consensus before editing, whether or not they "change" policy or wording or both, in whatever corner of the page, consensus is required. Even for adding/removing images or quotes by Jimbo consensus would be required, etc.

I like neither above proposed rewritings of the nutshell, for style and precision reasons. Brian Kendig's isn't even saying anything. It's not by near a summary of what is referred to as the central naming policy principle. --Francis Schonken 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I deplore, however, "give priority to". This attempts to mean "prefer", and fails; if we are going to encourage using English, we should use English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur that BK's was too short, and he has accepted this. But the current version contains unnecessary obfuscation. I will reinstate this one change under WP:BRD in a good faith effort to reestablish WP:Consensus Dhaluza 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you beat me to it. Let's follow WP:BRD anyway....Dhaluza 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is an essay;
• For actual guidance on the writing of policy pages, see Wikipedia:How to create policy.
• E.g., from that guideline: "Leave room for flexibility": a too rigid formulation of the naming conventions policy principle (e.g., leaving out "Generally, ...") might be unworkable. With some experience w.r.t. individual naming conventions guidelines one would see there are some exceptions to the general principle enclosed in some of the NC guidelines (statement of fact, whether one likes it or not). --Francis Schonken 08:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of the usage of special characters

Due to my participation of some WP:RM discussions on some articles (now known as Lucky Star (manga), We Love Katamari, I ♥ Huckabees and Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro), I have thought about the "symbol as title" problem and hence propose the replacement of the following in WP:NAME#Special Characters

Non-language characters such as "♥", "★", and "*", sometimes found in advertisements or logos, are not the common English usage. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

to

Non-language characters such as "♥", "★", and "*", sometimes found in advertisements or logos, are not the common English usage and, hence, should be avoided.

However, when the usage of the symbol convey more than one text readings, such symbols should be kept for accuracy.

Examples of the rationale:

• We Love Katamari not We ♥ Katamari because ♥ in this title only meant love.
• Lucky Star (manga) not Lucky ☆ Star because ☆ in this title is purely stylistic and do not convey any meaning.
• I ♥ Huckabees should be kept because the producer intentionally used the ambiguity of ♥ to convey both the meanings of love heart, and the big-box retail advertisement theme related to this movie.

In all cases, all possible readings should be set up as redirects, and the article should start with the original name with symbols.

Also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel Curtis (talk • contribs) 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm a little concerned about accessibility issues with some special characters. Will a heart symbol show up as such on all computers? How will it be processed by a text reader, which a blind person might use to access Wikipedia? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics

I've found several cases of edit wars regarding diacritics in the topic's name. E.g. Marek Špilár is moved to Marek Spilar and vice versa. Although I agree national characters can be hardly written if you don't use proper keyboard settings. But moving articles to names without diacritics is a loss of the information - it's nice to see how it is written in the original - specially in case of persons names. I propose to use topic's name as the most close to the original - in the national sound with diacritics, special german S, finnish characters etc. But with duty to create a redirect with plain us-ascii. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Only when English does; crossing the l's in Stanislaw Ulam violates both English usage and his own practice in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are and have been hundreds of others badly named in the same way. Just because a name can possibly be written with diacritics does not mean that it should be in the English Wikipedia. Furthermore, a great many people have used different spellings of their names over time, in different languages, and so on. Gene Nygaard 05:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a related query at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Accented names. -Will Beback · † · 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

Francis, about my revert to your revert: The opening section, as it had been, was aimless and weak, in my opinion. A few specific points:

• The bit about "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" is the main idea of the entire guideline, and therefore should be the first sentence. The previous opening sentence, "Naming conventions are a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages," is a tautology and says nothing useful.
• The second sentence previously was the part about explaining that "these are conventions, not rules carved in stone." This applies to all Wikipedia guidelines, and so it's not something this guideline needs to spend the entire second paragraph explaining.
• "Another way to summarize..." Don't waste the words saying 'I'm going to tell you the guideline in other words now,' just state it.

Previously the opening section gave no useful information until the "article naming should give priority" sentence. I rearranged it to remove the hemming and hawing. If you don't agree, let's talk about my edits; but I'm starting to get a bit tired of your habit of completely reverting my changes whenever you don't like something. Let's talk about this and agree on the best wording, instead. - Brian Kendig 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, regarding your edit comment "talk page does not establish consensus on the version he reverted to" - Consensus is only needed for changes in policy, not for edits which avoid changing the meaning of a guideline. If you feel that my edits changed the meaning of this guideline, then please explain and let's fix it. Otherwise, please stop reverting my edits without discussion. (And, incidentally, what gives you the right to change the page without consensus, if you're saying I'm not allowed to?) - Brian Kendig 13:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this more and more looking like WP:POINT in my eyes. Neither Brian Kendig, nor Dhaluza seemed to get much support for their novel ideas at Template talk:Nutshell. Then, instead of waiting till the discussion reaches a point, they went around implementing the novel unapproved ideas on the nutshells of some policy pages, including this one, in an attempt to illustrate their points that weren't agreed upon at Template talk:Nutshell. Because of the high profile of the pages, these changes cause quite some disruption (while on average, there's little enthousiasm about the intent of the novel principles, and even less about the way they're being forced down), also because ongoing and recent other discussions on the nutshell topic, at the talk pages of these policies, are being ignored. We have a guideline about that: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please, go read it, including the last paragraph of WP:POINT#Examples, before deciding to continue on this slippery slope. My next step would be to let people at the WP:AN/I decide about how best to proceed next. --Francis Schonken 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Francis, you already used this same exact paragraph on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. You keep reverting people, without discussion, whenever they change your text; and then when they push back, you accuse them of WP:POINT. Look - you and I both want what's best for Wikipedia, but your methods aren't helping the spirit of community. Instead of waving around '3RR!' and 'AN/I!', let's please talk about things and come to agreement. I am not your enemy and I do not want a personal fight over this. - Brian Kendig 14:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your changes as an improvement.

Above (#Nutshell) I gave some reasons why. The rest should be self-evident: The policy can't be reduced to a policy principle (because we have all the naming conventions guidelines that fill in the dots, and sometimes in doing so go against the policy principle: these exceptions are covered by the policy); neither can the policy be reduced to a set of naming conventions guidelines because these don't cover everything, and at any given time contain ambiguities, inconsistencies and contradictions among themselves, for which cases the general policy principle should be taken as most appropriate guidance.

Where I thought some of your remarks regarding the Wikipedia:Naming conventions intro were justified, I included them in my rewrite of the intro, which I thought therefore non-controversial. Then, above, you make me a reproach of attempting to rewrite the intro in that sense ("[...] what gives you the right to change the page without consensus, [...]"). I'm not going to revert to that version, since people who want to see and discuss it, can click the hyperlink in the quote.

Similarly, people can click this link to see the version you prefer, and discuss it.

Since neither your proposed new version, nor mine have "consensus" at this time, and we both agree that henceforth we use this talk page to see what can be agreed upon with others joining in, I revert to the previous version of nutshell and intro, which have been stable for a considerable period of time. --Francis Schonken 15:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not even talking about the nutshell. I haven't touched this page's nutshell since yesterday morning, and that edit of mine was reverted; I don't understand why you keep trying to involve the nutshell in this discussion. About the opening section - thank you for attempting to incorporate some of my suggestions into your rewrite; if you'd like to discuss further changes to the opening section, then let's start a new area here on this Talk page to work them out. Meanwhile I'm going to leave your revert as it stands to give other editors a chance to weigh in on this disagreement. - Brian Kendig 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See the link to your version above: 13:37, 24 January 2007 - in that edit you removed "Generally, " from the nutshell. I had commented specifically on that point above, my last edit to the #Nutshell section, several hours before your revert. Instead of discussing my remark on this talk page, you went for a plain revert of the nutshell... --Francis Schonken 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is unique?

The policy says, "In band names and titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule..." (WP:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names). What does "unique" mean in that context? John Cardinal 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I always felt this bit was somewhat ambiguous, given that it would be directly at odds with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization if it really referred to uniquely capitalized titles. And it would also more or less path the way for a lot of stylized typography to be carried over to Wikipedia (see related discussion below). I'd suggest to give preference to the clearer variant the WikiProject Albums has come up and worked with and clarify this policy accordingly. - Cyrus XIII 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization is short and sweet, and clear as a result. Do you think it might be worthwhile to add a comment that it overrides unusual capitalization of album and song titles, to make it explicit? John Cardinal 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Flora of a region, article title?

What do I call an article about the Flora of a region? One reason this is important is these are articles hard to search for on Wikipedia unless they have some commonality of titles. Should an article be titled Flora of Turkey? Or Vegetation of Turkey? From a botanical stand-point in English the two are used somewhat differently. The first would simply be a collection of the plants native to or naturalized in Turkey, while the second would describe plant communities found in Turkey. A flora might also contain descriptions of the vegetation, and a manual of vegetation might also contain plant lists under each association. But, in general, what should the articles be titled? Also geology? Should it be Geology of Turkey, Geology of Iran? This seems more intuitive than the plants. KP Botany 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an interesting case where category naming conventions are ahead of article naming conventions; given that we already have Category:Flora by country, and even Category:Flora of Turkey, I think that Flora of Turkey would be the preferred title. -- Visviva 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dominator UAV

Hello, would people with experience in naming conventions for articles please chime in at the Discussion page here: Talk:Dominator UAV. I am flexible on the article name, but I want to ensure people using search engines like "Google" and "Wikipedia" will find it quickly and easily. Thank you Headphonos 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are talking about article names within the scope of WP:Air, which has standards on aircraft article names. You have tried to move this article to a name that does not conform to those standards, which have been present on Wikipedia for years. You cannot just name an article willy-nilly. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientific or common name?

What is the policy for situations where there is a commonly used name and a more precise scientific name. I am concerned mostly with language names: 'Ebonics' vs. 'African-American Vernacular English (AAVE)'; 'Patwa/Patois' vs. 'Creole'? There is also the possibility that the less formal names could be considered offensive by some. Makerowner 02:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Political parties

I've made a draft proposal for separate subpage at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). Any opinions? If ppl are ok with it, then it could be linked and categorized. --Soman 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

trade unions

should there be a separate convention on trade unions? imho, its generally quite confusing when names of say CGT, CNT, are translated into english. --Soman 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stylized logos

What do in cases like Silent Hill: 0rigins? The most common name is Silent Hill: Origins but the logo in the package says 0rigins. --Mika1h 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We should use the name that the makers use in publications that we use as sources. As far as I can till, the makers usually use the letter O. I think that the use of the number 0 is mostly limited to the logo. Either way, one should be a redirect to the other. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Work titles with irregular capitalization

This guideline doesn't seem to provide specific guidance on when the published title of a work has irregular capitalization, such as anyone lived in a pretty how town. The guideline (especially sections like "Album titles and band names" and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)) would seem to suggest we're to "fix" capitalization that was left irregular by the creator... this isn't the case, is it? We don't fix when the title of a work has intentionally incorrect grammar or spelling, for example. If we're to fix capitalization, why does {{lowercase}} even exist? --W.marsh 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus and practice (at least as far as my experience with works of music and film goes), is to apply title case to ... well, titles, as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization. This appears to be in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) (which points out a few exceptions that might require the lowercase template), in order to reduce non-standard capitalization for a more coherent style throughout Wikipedia. This article outlines the reasoning behind "unofficial" capitalization very well, in my opinion. - Cyrus XIII 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus and I have already discussed this a bit on our talk pages... I was kind of hoping we'd get some more input. Perhaps I should list a request at WP:RFC? --W.marsh 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Authors choose titles to convey meaning about their works. The titles are part of the work, in fact. I think it is somewhat presumptuous of us to change the title an author chose to give. That means we should capitalise the way that the author did it, regardless of what the rules for capitalising parts of speech in titles might be. But then I think that Lego ought to redirect to LEGO, since that's how The LEGO Group wants it spelt, rather than the other way round. If this is being discussed further elsewhere that would be good to know. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese emperors with country identifier?

I just finished assessing a bunch of articles on Japanese emperors for WPBiography and noticed that, unlike western royalty, the emperors are not identified by their country. Shouldn't the articles all be titled "Emperor ______ of Japan"? Mocko13 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, no. Naming conventions for Japanese emperors are not the same as those for European monarchs. The reasons for this are many and I think I'll let someone more knowledgeable than I explain the matter more fully. Alkari (?) 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Parliaments

I'm trying to figure out a standard form for Lists of Canadian provincial parliaments. For example, which of these should be used for Alberta's Legislative Assembly (it's currently on #1):

1. List of Alberta Legislative Assemblies
2. List of Albertan Legislative Assemblies
3. List of Legislative Assemblies of Alberta

Thanks, --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as general format as concerned, No. 3 would be the way to go. No. 2 just "sounds wrong": "Albertan <noun>" is not idiomatic -- people always say "Alberta <noun>". The same goes for the other provincial adjectives too, but oddly "Canadian <noun>" is the idiom.

However, for this specific case it should "List of Legislatures of Alberta". In Alberta it's the legislatures that are numbered, not the legislative assemblies: see the press release announcing the next session for example. The other provinces would have to be checked case by case to see how they do it. Indefatigable 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Glaring omission: Wikipedia:Requested moves

How is it possible that this page has survived this long without any mention whatsoever of Wikipedia:Requested moves, the very procedure we have set of for dealing with this very issue? Or was it there at some time and improperly removed? It just makes no sense whatsoever to me. Gene Nygaard 14:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is also the procedure in the case of categories, and there is another one for the template namespace, perhaps others. Gene Nygaard 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added links to Help:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Requested moves to the lead. The latter page directs people where to go for category and image renames. There may be a better way to include the information I added, but at least there's something there now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Can anyone help me with a hypothetical situation. There is an island called Bogistan. That is clearly the most widely used name for the island, which is not disputed. Some inhabitants of the island do not like the name, and would rather it were called something different. Editors are going around putting multiple examples of use of alternatives names for Bogistan in the page, which they have trawled off the net. Is this original research? Is it acceptable? Are there any other policies that cover it?--86.31.225.220 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your question is actually specific to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Generally, for a non-historical article, the name should be the English translation of the official name of the place, as recognized by the sovereign government. You can list the other names, along with the context, as long as the attribution leads to reliable sources. Dhaluza 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My question is actually a bit more general than that. To give another example, if I wanted to write that Stettin is still used in the English language today, do I simply need to find a mention of Stettin on an English-language website, or do I need to find secondary sources discussing use of the term?--86.31.225.220 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a parallel example of this case for Gdansk and Danzig at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) page. You will note that they both point to the official name Gdańsk, but list both alternatives, as well as others. I think you are fine with one primary reference for including mention of an alternative name. If you want to provide more context around the alternative, then a secondary source is needed. Dhaluza 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambig qualifiers

I apologize if it's relatively obvious and I'm just not seeing it, but is there a policy/guideline/custom for or against using birth & death years as disambig qualifiers? I would like to disambig two samurai named Suwa Yorishige, and I can do it by years, by century, or by historical period - one would become "Suwa Yorishige (Nanboku)" and the other "Suwa Yorishige (Sengoku)". What's preferred? Thanks. LordAmeth 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) have very similar scope, and I think they should be merged. Comments?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not remember it correctly, but wasn't the former at one point split from the latter because it was growing too long, thus overwhelming other types of geographic names?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles on churches

Is there a policy or guideline on how articles on churches should be named? For example, should Church of St. Peter, Brighton be named as such, or can it be named St Peter's Church, Brighton (in accordance with its website)? I am asking because I want to be sure of my facts before if I change that article's name (and others). I have been told by another user that an admin had said there is a policy or guideline on this, but I'm doubtful there would be and anyway I haven't been able to find such a policy or guideline. Thanks, A bit iffy 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles on religious institutions are another problem area. The term Arianism is very common, but suffers several problems. It is a derogatory name given by its opponents; it has acquired additional meanings (e.g. teaching that Jesus was not divine) that would exclude Arius et al.; and it describes two larger overlapping groups ((1) the critics of Nicaea and (2) Lucian of Antioch and his followers) as well as one smaller subgroup (Arius of Alexandria and his followers). So it's hard to tell when the article means "Arians, as in Arius, Eusebius, George, Aetius, Wulfila, etc." or "Arians, as in Arius, but not these other guys." Jacob Haller 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The "o" in "o'clock"

Would interested editors have a look at what's been happening at The 11 O'Clock Show? A user, after an abortive attempt to argue that we should change the capitalisation rules to allow the capitalisation of the preposition in "o'Clock", waited a while and then renamed this article. I've listed it as a (controversial) move back. Discussion would be welcome. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think it should stay that way. The O probably should be capitalized, most modern usage of the "O'Clock" has it capitalized I think. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 12:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Coeliac disease - changing our spelling could save lives

I've made an argument in the discussion page for coeliac disease (and won't clutter by repeating it here) that not all naming conventions are free of deadly consequences. Coeliac (your, and the UK spelling) or Celiac disease is common and vastly underdiagnosed. Most physicians are extremely poorly informed about it, and it kills. The article here contains not a few very helpful facts not so easily discovered, that can (and will) save lives. Choosing a rare spelling (as Wikipedia has inadvertently done) will cost lives by limiting search query relevance, I argue there - the only cause being that years ago the first entry on the illness had the UK spelling. Pity. Ndaniels 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects, anyone? I'd also say that it's not really our duty to save lives. --tjstrf talk 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really thought 100 people might die over two decades (or just 10)(hardly impossible with hundreds of millions of celiacs), I don't think you'd really rue spending ten minutes making the change. It's psychopathic to passively allow unnecessary deaths when a trivial effort could make a difference. I just don't think you realize how outrageous that sentence is, and I'm certain you don't believe it, 'cause I can't think of any good reasons that would interest any true clinical psychopath in editing Wikipedia.Ndaniels 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it spelt Celiac disease, but obviously someone has, as that redirect has been in place since July 2002, and the variant spelling is also in the lead sentence to make sure people who found it from that name know they have the right page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It may sound brutal, but User:tjstrf is right - Wikipedia is not about saving lives; it's just an encyclopaedia. Also, there's a disclaimer somewhere that says something like Wikipedia should not take the place of advice from informed professionals. As has been indicated twice above, someone searching for "celiac" within Wikipedia will be redirected to the correct article. Furthermore, people searching outside this encyclopaedia (e.g., via Google) will come across relevant, useful links anyway, of which Wikipedia is one.--A bit iffy 08:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also: there was once a proposal to rename the article, but this was turned down. See Talk:Coeliac disease#Requested move.--A bit iffy 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, do read the argument which as stated above is in the coeliac discussion page titled "Celiac vs Coeliac" or somesuch, before replying as if no argument for the position has been made. It would be courteous to address the replies there to many of these points. Reject my arguments if you like, of course, but please read those arguments first, and do try address or at least mention my counterpoints there where relevant. Right now everyone seems to be blurting while ignoring the intial source on the Coeliac discussion page entirely. Thanks.Ndaniels 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that more English speakers around the world use UK spelling than US spelling (all of India and Africa's English speakers, to start with), chances are that changing the spelling of the article would result in more not less deaths. That is, of course, if there weren't such things as redirects, meaning that anyone typing either spelling will instantly be taken to the correct article. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Grutness) We read it, but it doesn't change the answer. There is a redirect from the US variant spelling, so people entering that spelling in the search box get the article. Several variant spellings are in the article so people using internet-based full-text search engines find the article with whatever spelling they use. The Wikipedia convention is that the first major dialect of English used in an article is the one kept for that article. A formal move request was soundly defeated, complete with a World Health Organisation Organization reference.. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No-one seems to have asked Ndaniels why he thinks that a spelling change would save lives (yes, I know that that's because it obviously wouldn't, so I'm not criticising). He hasn't offered any explanation or argument, nor responded to the points about redirects and the fact that variant spellings are given at the beginning of the article. Isd there any point continuing with this one-sided discussion? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I gather, he seems to think that it is a very common genetic disorder which is severely under diagnosed and therefore people need to have access to high quality information about the disorder which they may not get if they search with the 'more common' (supposedly) spelling. Of course, I don't quite get how people who don't know they have a disorder will know how to spell the disorder they don't know they have in the first place nor do I get why someone is going to take the trouble to research the disorder but yet somehow miss out our article just because it's a little lower down because we use a different spelling from them. Then of course I also don't get why people should be relying on our article in the first place, especially since ironically searching for celiac gives a bunch of links at the very top which help in searching for information on the disease from arguably better sites for this sort of thing. Nil Einne 12:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

abbreviations

I assume that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_abbreviations means that if the spelled out phrase is also used "commonly," one has to prefer this over the abbreviation? At least that is what I get from "is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation." Exclusively here sounds like I would need to have a hard time finding the spelled out phrase in an academic paper for example, for me to not use it. Intangible2.0 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Names of schools

Should schools have the word the added before the school's name when speaking of them in the article proper? An example would be, should Ohio State be referred to as I'm going to Ohio State university, or I'm going to the Ohio State University. There currently is some discussion of this matter at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-11 Ohio State University. Any clarification of whether or not this guideline is relevant to the discussion there is welcome, if it is relevant, then which version is correct. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

further clarification shows that this is not the right guideline, but another naming convention is involved. Please ignore the request. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I've had a couple of editors recently insisting that prepositions over four letters should be capitalised, and claiming that it was the MoS guideline. I was surprised, because that was never our approach, and I didn't remember seeing it discussed. I finally tracked it down to here, and indeed that qualification (all words over four letters should be capitalised) had appeared. Checking the Talk page, I found that it had been added by one editor, had been disagreed with by another, and somehow the issue was ignored or not noticed.

Some style manuals capitalise everything, including prepositions, articles, etc., some capitalise no articles or prepositions (always our approach in the past), and some place limits of various word lengths. If we're going to change the guideling, I think that we need to discuss the issue first. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the claims that the capitalisation used by the manual of style is somehow standard English. That aside, what happens when the artist(s) of a song use other capitalisations, for example When The Sun Goes Down contains an image of the CD with that capitalisation. Dmn € Դմն 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of Northern Hemisphere Temperate Seasons

See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Seasons) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a policy that where ever possible climatic seasons are not used to describe the time of year of an event. It is a very small minded "Eurocentric" assumption that everyone reading the article will understand immediately what time frame is being talked about. The use of seasons to describe timeframes is very widespread on wikipedia, much more some (I suspect) than in other media. Apart from excluding the entire sothern hemisphere, the use of temperate seasons (autumn, spring etc) excludes those people in the tropics who have two seasons (wet and dry). If a date cannot be fixed to a particular month it is probably not well known enough to be stated at all. If it is (eg release dates that say "Winter 2007") than can I suggest using 2rd Quarter 2007? Or June-August 2007? (I used Sourthern Hemisphere Temperate Seasons to prove my point)Shniken 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I once saw a film where a character stated that she "summered in the northern hemisphere and wintered in the southern". There is no possible logical resolution to that statement. Does she fly back and forth constantly between March and September, and then go into orbit for the remaining six months? Or, does she live in the cold seasons of both (in which case she should have said that she winters everywhere), or live in the hot seasons of both (ditto)? Making such a local claim is not encyclopedic. samwaltz 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Created article: Naming Conventions (Seasons) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Bad title. Bad!

Errr... yah. I mean, the title didn't resolve properly. Could you give that one more go? samwaltz 11:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Seasons)

Completely disagree. Many ancient histories specify the seasons of events without specifying the months. Those of Ammianus Marcellinus often do so. In addition, there may be seasonal clues or similar constraints. Authors may refer flooded rivers, harvests, snowfalls, etc. Jacob Haller 02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Seasons) for talk on this policy --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This subject was addressed on April 2006:

• See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 8#Autumn
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 47#Seasons

And the subject is covered in a guideline:

• See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Seasons

So I think that a new guidline called, "Naming conventions (Seasons)", is unnecessary (Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maximum article name length

How long can an article name be? — Ocolon 12:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

255 bytes - see Help:Page name#Maximum page name length.--A bit iffy 12:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Ocolon 15:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Choosing a name: original research?

It's been suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#New Proposal that deciding to name station articles based on what signs at the station say is original research. That seems ridiculous to me; can someone back me up? --NE2 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There continue to be problems here. Please help us decide how to determine the common name. --NE2 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, guys. It's been really great.</sarcasm> --NE2 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical order of some non-English names

Regarding the List of Formula One drivers, which has been deemed a featured list, I was just wondering how some names should best be ordered alphabetically. Should Cristiano da Matta and Hermano da Silva Ramos be sorted under D, as they are now, or should they be sorted under M and S respectively? I'm not familiar with how the Portuguese-speaking are sorting names of this kind. The same can be said about some other people from countries in which Romance languages are spoken, and also some South Africans. I already know that the German "von" should not be regarded as a part of the name when sorting it alphabetically.

These questions have been addressed earlier (now in archive 4), but I find it's not clear to me how all the names should be sorted. Help would be appreciated. John Anderson 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure, but it seems more natural for me to do like in German, sorting Cristiano da Matta under M. Hermano da Silva Ramos would be sorted under R, because you should sort just by the last name. But I don't know if there is a convention about it. Probably not, because when the gymnast Daiane dos Santos had her floor skill named after her name, they called it dos Santos, and they always pick the last name. Fregonassi 17:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In Portuguese, particles such as "de", "dos" are usually not considered part of the last name when sorting alphabetically (notice that they shouldn't even be capitalized). However, some English language media and even official publications, whether unaware of the original Portuguese usage or consciously following a parallel convention, tend to attach these particles to the last name as if they formed a single unit. I'm not sure about the specific Wikipedia guidelines for cases such as this, but the correct usage from a native point of view at least would be to drop all or most of these "de", "dos", from the last name, just like the German "von". So you would have, for instance: "SANTOS, João dos"; "SILVA, Carlos da", and so forth.E.Cogoy 11:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points. Having recently created an article on French actress Emma de Caunes it had seemed natural to include the "de" in the sort order. I wonder what other encyclopaedias/directories do - can someone have a look?. Also, I've looked at the French Wikipedia to see how they do things there. It appears they include "de" and so on as part of the family name (see here), but exclude it in the sort (see here).--A bit iffy 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Emma de Caunes should definitely be sorted under "C", as per the French Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tooth

I raised a question at the Anatomy Wikiproject, and the question was brought to Clinical Medicine Wikiproject on how to name topics that apply generically or specifically to humans vs animals, eg Tooth vs Tooth (human) or Human tooth vs Tooth (animal) - Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#Human vs. animal? for some of the conversation. I would appreciate any input. - Dozenist talk 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly favour using the human term as the undisambiguated main page title, with animal concepts being disambiguated from there. As pointed out in the CLINMED discussion, Wikipedia is still HPOV (human point-of-view), apart from the fact that generally more is to be said about human than animal anatomy. JFW | T@lk 06:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What about topics like herd behaviour and others like that are derived from a term originally used to describe either animal features and/or behaviour but are also now used to descibe human facets? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Places within cities in the US

I've been trying to figure out if there is a convention about this, and WP:PLACE is a bit unclear. My question is about the names of articles about places or buildings within a city, such as Humboldt Park, Chicago. Is there a rule to help us choose between "Humboldt Park, Chicago", "Humboldt Park, Chicago, Illinois", "Humboldt Park (Chicago)", and "Humboldt Park (Chicago, Illinois)? Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for baseball players

Please take the time to review and contribute to the discussion regarding naming conventions & disambiguation for baseball player articles going on here. Thanks, Caknuck 20:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Two names are equally popular. You have to choose between a POV and NPOV one

Given a choice, should NPOV be considered when choosing a title? Let's mention something about such situations in the policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Any examples of recent cases? --Soman 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dokdo , Takeshima, Liancourt Rocks
• Bangladesh Liberation War, Bangladesh War of Independence

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Help please

I just finish my first article on wikipedia. I have to type the full name of my article in order to find my article, My question is how to make the other search for Abbreviation of the article title and found it. At the moment I have to type the whole title name to find my article.

                                  Thank you very much for all you guys help
                                                     Gonk60 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Create a Redirect from the abbrevited name. Rich Farmbrough, 09:21 21 April 2007 (GMT).

Highlander (series)

...and that kinda states the problem in a nutshell. The article discusses the series, but in context to the films, which are described first, After the series, the cartoon and animé and comic books are discussed. I was thinking that Highlander (franchise) or Highlander (universe) come a bit closer to the mark, but something better is clearly needed. A helping hand might be what the doctor ordered. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, I was actually looking for some constructive input, folks...Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rosenknospe 13:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the disambiguation suffix necessary?

There is only one thing called Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue, but the article is at Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (New York City Subway). I've looked for guidance from the naming conventions but have found nothing concrete. --NE2 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

demography

The naming convention demographics of... (country) is not correct. It should be demography of... according to both the demography and the demographics page. I propose that this should be changed accordingly. Virgule82 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not. What the heck are you trying to pull? Demographics means (Websters): "The characteristics of human populations and population segments, especially when used to identify consumer markets: The demographics of the Southwest indicate a growing population of older consumers." That's exactly how the word is used in all the articles. Please revert your edits before you get penalized for vandalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unable to decide

The words

In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.

from the section on controversial names are an invitation to abuse; one side need merely come up with enough WP:ILIKEIT !votes to be able to deny consensus with a straight face; they do not need to discuss the case, or comply with the rest of this page. I suspect that there is a valid thought here, but the wording should be much less sweeping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the sentence, as it does not make sense - to "allow" both names means to have an article of equal standing under each title - two articles on the same topic should be merged, reigniting the dispute in the first place. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Švitrigaila 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. At the very least, new wording should be changed to make it crystal-clear, even for newbies, that this clause only applies in those cases in which no clear common English usage could be determined in the course of the discussion. - Best regards, Ev 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This sentence appears to have been added in order to support a controversial "no consensus" decision regarding the proposed move of Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab to Shatt al-Arab. The decision and the sentence justifying it were both made by admin Alex Bakharev. As such, it is quite disingenuous. Not only should this sentence added in the midst of a dispute be removed, but Bakharev's actions should be reviewed by his peers. Rklawton 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I really needed to read edit histories more carefully. I sincerely apologize to Alex Bakharev for not doing so. Rklawton 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV & naming conventions

Please, take a quick look at the discussion at "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia", and this edit, in relation to the current naming dispute at the article on the Shatt al-Arab waterway. It's just the latest example of something I have encountered very often, and which takes a lot of time and effort to deal with: editors arguing that "WP:NPOV demands that we use double titles in articles about disputed regions, zones, territories, etc... Using one single name would imply ownership or endorsement of one side of the dispute".

In this case, users are relying on this interpretation of WP:NPOV to advocate for "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" (Persian/Arab names, in alphabetical order, when "Shatt al-Arab" is the one commonly used in English - it's the English name, for crying out loud :-). I have encountered the same argument in favour of "Kosova/Kosovo" (viewed as "Albanian/Serbian" names) and basically every other article related to Kosovo... "Using Kosovo alone implies endorsing Serbian claims over the region".

So, to finish these arguments once and for all, and saving me and others lots of time... how about adding some clear wording to this policy, something that every newbie could understand, along the lines of:

“NPOV does not advocate the use of double titles "to keep articles neutral". We aim to write neutral, fair, unbiased articles; but we aim to write them in English, using the names the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.”

Or any other wording to that effect. Something I can just link to instead of having to spend time more sterile discussions... What do you think ? - Best regards, Ev 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A rose by any other name

Clearly, many people have a lot invested in differences of spelling within the English language and its different varieties, let alone differences in actual wording or naming of titles that reflect cultural ambiguities. See the discussion page about the naming of the Yoghurt article. There are several ways of dealing with this which I will outline and then comment on after.

1) Every article could have a single definitive title containing no ambiguities that represents the 'standard' - i.e. a title that would be most easily recognised by the largest number of speakers of English. Such articles would contain a section covering the differences in possible titles and spellings of words in the title, as well as being the article to which all such possible titles and spellings would be re-directed. The advantage of this is simplicity.

2) Articles about which there are differences of POV about naming/spelling, that are reflected by actual differences in usage as demonstrated by sources on the topic, could reflect those differences in the title of the article. The order in which the different names appear could reflect the proportion of interested linguistic populations using the respective names/spellings. The differences would be elaborated on within the article.

3) Articles that appear to be about a single topic may be subject to significant dispute about the naming/spelling of the title, and to significant disputes within the article itself about aspects of its content. Such situations could be resolved by creating as many smaller articles as necessary that both meet WP criteria and limit the potential for ongoing disagreement, with each article as far as possible having a single name and with spellings consistent throughout.

Option 1) appears simple, but has the potential to create ongoing disputes and overly-long WP articles (of which there are plenty). And while it may appeal to a utilitarian spirit, will likely result in problems arising from the dominance of a certain kind of English, with attendant issues of POV contained within that variety of the language. The differences between the varieties of English is more than a few differences in the way some words are spelled. In some instances, the differences in meanings are more like a different language. Such differences can be difficult to reconcile. Given that WP is not a paper encyclopedia, it doesn't need to try to be a final arbiter and resolve things to the 'lowest common denominator' for publication. The advantages of a wiki-encyclopedia are that actual differences in the world can be registered and documented rather than having to be glossed over. Paper encyclopedias attempts to present a NPOV have been criticised for their POV-ness. NPOV is more a matter of scope of ovreall coverage than something that can be applied equally to every single article. WP as a whole should be able to provide enough links between related pieces to result in a NPOV overall, but attempting to do this for each and every article is impossible.

Option 2) has the problem that once an article acquires more than one name in its title, or uses more than one spelling, the question arises about how the rest of the article should proceed to be consistent with the article's name. Although this consistency is desirable, even when WP articles use a single name/spelling, inconsistencies do occur, with some articles becoming overly long as more and more POVs are added about what the article is 'about'.

Option 3) Is suggested as a way of overcoming the difficulties raised with the previous two options. Its based on what already happens in WP. As long as there are sufficient internal links between articles about similar topics, that have different names, then users of WP would seem to be well-served and overall, NPOV upheld.Eyedubya 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Option 2 has another problem, exemplified by the excruciating debate mentioned on WP:LAME over whether the city in Northern Italy was to be called Bozen-Bolzano or Bolzano-Bozen. I'm not making this up; it was after two rounds of this that I began pushing strongly for Option 1 (and Bolzano).
• Option 3 is an invitation to Sympathetic Point of View, which we don't do; Wikinfo does. Each party will edit the article with their own spelling - and I predict that when they get bored they will then vandalize the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the link, interesting. But now that I've read it, I don't think that's quite what I meant. Its not necessarily about SPOV. Its about articles not getting too big or contested and allowing editors to spend more time and energy on content itself. Take an example. This furore over the Yoghurt article's title. So, what's the harm in there being an article called 'Yoghurt' and one titled 'Yogurt' and even another one called 'Yogourt', each of which contains pretty much the same information including links between them? Each one can be edited by those who favour one particular spelling. Does it matter that they sit side by side in WP? And as for the names of cities, well, why can't the same thing happen there as well? As long as there is a link saying 'this article is the sibling of article X', then those who want the totally comprehensive view can noodle between them. But as it is, WP tends to result in unstable pages and supression of some PoVs. Yes that does sound like Wikinfo, but it doesn't have to be. I don't see why people will get bored and vandalise in the way you propose. But I'm relatively new around here, so ... who knows.Eyedubya 07:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not suppose that you advocated the SPOV, and it won't happen on Yoghurt; but look at the mess on Talk:Persian Gulf, and consider what would be likely to happen if we actually had a Arabian Gulf alongside it. Bad enough as it is, but at least the Persians and the Arabs to some extent neutralize each other, providing leverage for the rest of us to keep both sides in bounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft "Use standard English for titles even if trademarks suggest otherwise"

I'm proposing this be entered after a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (trademarks):

Convention: Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalisation (Invader Zim).

Exceptions include article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay

Rationale and specifics: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).

I agree, mystery person. Sign your posts. BenB4 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, that post was mine. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sonic The Hedgehog

There is a dispute at Sonic the Hedgehog (character). I have provided a source proving that "The" is the character's official middle name, therefore that characters correct full name is "Sonic The Hedgehog". Another editor keeps changing it though without a good reason why. Since "The" is the characters middle name, it is a proper noun and supposed to be capitalized. What if a real person had "The" as their legal middle name? We wouldn't capitalize it "the", so why not make sure the characters name is capitalized right? TJ Spyke 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I've looked at the page and WP is being inconsistent in the application of its policy. Take an example of someone whose name doesn't fit with WP policy on capitalisation - bell hooks - the name of her article isn't Bell hooks, or even Bell Hooks, its bell hooks, because that's the way she spells her name. So either WP will have to offend a very large number of people and re-title bell hooks' article or Sonic's article should be renamed - and all of the usages of Sonic's full name within the article should follow suit. However, the argument that 'The' is a middle name is a spurious one, - since whether its T or t, its not an 'adjectival' issue, its about captalisation of The Definite Article (anyone for 'Sonic A Hedgehog'?). Eyedubya 06:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this falls under the "ignore the stupid marketing division" clause, and it should stay at Sonic the Hedgehog. --tjstrf talk 07:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should it stay? "The" is officially the characters middle name. This would be like having David Alan Grier's article at "David alan Grier". TJ Spyke 07:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Alan" is an article now? --tjstrf talk 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No! Alan is the way one of the words making up his name is written in the title of the article about him, same as 'The' is the way one of the words making up Sonic's full name is written and should be written in the title of the article about him!. Whether the 'The' in Sonic's name is an article and what kind of article is absolutely irrelevant. Same with bell hooks - whether or not her name is 'really' bell hooks, and whether or not we are meant to infer something about the shape of fishing equipment or how bells are suspended is irrelevant to the way her name is written. Or Gary Glitter. According to the grammar freaks, his surname should be 'Glitters', because otherwise his name would be a form of imperative rather than an adjective. The meaning of a name and its grammatical structure and correctness are totally, utterly irrelevant. Eyedubya 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Moerover what about The The. I note the way the article on this band has been titled does not follow WP policy on naming conventions for bands (which is specific about 'articles'). Eyedubya 08:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. What's wrong with The The? Jogers (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the WP manual of style - It should be 'The the' to conform to the policy on (non-)capitalisation of grammatical 'articles'.Eyedubya 10:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names it should be "The The" because the first and the last words in band names and titles should always be capitalized. Jogers (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, that's a rule that overides the rules about prepositions and articles - sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. Just look at the list of Category:English Rock music groups and the inconsistency is there, which is what I'm referring to.Eyedubya 13:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Billy the Kid, Winnie the Pooh, William the Conqueror, etc. Rmhermen 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not their middle name, not their middle name, not their middle name, etc. Did you read my post? "The" is not being used as the word, it's the characters middle name. As in "Sonic" is his first name, "The" is his middle name and "Hedgehog" is hus last name. TJ Spyke 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If "The" was really the character's middle name it should probably be capitalized as its function wouldn't be an article but I find this reasoning very strange. It seems like an "encouragement of special treatment by the trademark owner" which should be avoided as per WP:MOS-TM. Jogers (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also notice that we have screenshots of him giving his own title as "Sonic the Hedgehog".

My hypothesis here is that in Japanese, where "Sonic The Hedgehog" is a foreign phrase it is his proper name, so Sonic's middle name there is indeed "the" (or more correctly "za"). In English, however, since the phrase is obviously descriptive rather than a proper name, it's a title, "Sonic the Hedgehog". --tjstrf talk 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your hypotheses about Japanese usage and English interpretations are both very interesting, but without sources, are what WP calls 'original research' and thus don't add much to the debate. I suggest that actual practices on WP be taken as the standard, regardless of any particular POVs on interpretations of WP guidelines and policies, or for that matter, ideological positioning wrt 'trademarks'. If its OK for an author have her name written the way she herself spells it (a form of trademark), then why is it not OK for a fictional character to have their name written the way its owners have registered it? Eyedubya 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research is permitted on talk pages as an aid to consensus decision making processes. --tjstrf talk 08:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to bell hooks it's indeed quite similar situation. I think the article should be moved to Bell Hooks and mention the capitalization she use in the lead paragraph. Jogers (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh come now! Surely you mean her page should be titled Gloria Jean Watkins? Eyedubya 08:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, why? I'm not familiar with the subject of the article but if she is most commonly known as Bell Hooks that's the way the article should be titled. Jogers (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

that's the point - she was born Gloria Jean Watkins, but she's known as bell hooks, not Bell Hooks. So you have a choice, name the article by her birth name or the one she's known by. If WP writes her name Bell Hooks, it will be the only place that does, and most people who know anything about bell hooks and the kinds of issues she's concerned with will think WP is ignorant, or fancifully pedantic or just plain culturally imperialist and no better than paper encyclopedias. How relevant does WP want to be, and who to? Eyedubya 11:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many references on the Internet that refer to her as Bell Hooks but they are many that don't including the notable example, Encyclopaedia Britannica. This makes me a little bit unsure here. It should probably spark some wider discussion. It's an interesting example and it would be nice if Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) addressed it somehow. Jogers (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, its interesting. And what about PlatEAU - where does this one fit in any of the Wp conventions? (I'm not saying it needs altering btw!)Eyedubya 14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Which of course leads one to ask about cEvin Key ... Eyedubya 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

... 'and beyondblue ...? Eyedubya 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for baseball players

The members of the Baseball Players Task Force (a part of WikiProject Baseball) have been discussing a set of naming conventions for baseball player articles. I have posted the draft copy here. Please feel free to discuss/propose changes at the talk page for the draft copy. Thanks, Caknuck 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be one standard naming convention for athletes in all professional sports (and arguments can be made to say this for all named athletes in general). There is nothing unique to baseball here: professional sports have similar naming issues with articles (such as American football's Gene Washington). B.Wind 16:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Diacritical marks

Is it necessary to use diacritical marks on people's names? I say this because this is the English Wikipedia, and therefore it may make sense to Anglicize names. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 03:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have not been able to reach an agreement on this issue, and as far as I know it's currently being considered on a case by case basis. See the "Naming conventions (use English)" guideline, specifically the "Disputed issues" section. - Best regards, Ev 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ev is correct, we handle it on a case-by-case basis. Some people are best known by names with diacriticals, and so their articles should reflect that common usage. For example, Pedro Almodóvar. Others have names which are spelled with diacriticals sometimes, but not in English-language publications, and so we shouldn't do so either. For example, Roman Polanski. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Forward slash in titlle of articles

I guess here is the best place to ask this question. What should be done with articles which contain slashes in their names, like 9/11 Memorial (Arizona) or 9/11 (film)? Currently the talk pages of these articles serve as subpages of Talk:9. Is it okay to keep them like that? Peacent 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are dashes acceptable in these contexts? Are hyphens acceptable as dashes (because the odd-dashes pose all sorts of typing problems (on wikipedia) and display problems (on the net at large))? Jacob Haller 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dashes are acceptable in these contexts, and only in these contexts. The "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline includes the "Subpage feature (creating a subpage with a slash) disabled in main namespace" sub-section, mentioning precisely these contexts as the sole exception:

“Slashes may be used freely when present in original titles, or usual terminology. Examples: Face/Off, Input/output.”

See also the "Naming conventions (technical restrictions)" guideline, especifically the "Forward slash" sub-section.

About replacing the dashes by hyphens, in principle it could be done, and it would simply require consensus among Wikipedia editors for doing so:

• at the respective articles' talk pages (Talk:9/11 Memorial (Arizona) & Talk:9/11 (film)), if you're interested in modifying those two articles only.
• at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names), if you want to remove the above-mentioned sole exception from the guideline, and thus eliminate all dashes throughout Wikipedia :-)

I have no idea on how to handle the current talk pages of those articles (whether to just continue having them as subpages of Talk:9 or perhaps transforming Talk:9/11 (film) into a redirect to Talk:9-11 (film)), but this is a good place to ask about it, and any other doubt you may have :-) Best regards. Ev 00:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this policy dictate picking names that narrow the scope of the article?

There is currently a dispute about an article that was spun off from the main biography of a person -- let's call him John Doe. We had a great deal of detail about John Doe's time with the U.S. Navy during World War II, so an editor created an article called "John Doe and the military", starting with the information about Doe's naval service and with the intention of adding other interactions Doe had with military matters.

One editor changed the title, however, to "John Doe's naval service", claiming that "John Doe and the military" is "too general". This editor is now accusing the three other editors who prefer the title "John Doe and the military" of "going against policy", claiming that when WP:NC says "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity", what the "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" actually means is that the title must be used to tell readers that John Doe's most notable interaction with the world of the military was military service, and not just any kind of military service, but specifically naval service (despite the fact that Doe also served in the Marine Corps Reserve.) Obviously choosing the title "John Doe's naval service" closes the door to a lot of material which would be sensibly covered under "John Doe and the military", but this editor insists that choosing the title which leaves room for this information "violates WP:NC".

Does anyone else think, as this editor does, that it is a violation of this policy to not tailor an article title as narrowly as possible to the current content of the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The actual dispute in question can be found at this link: Talk:L. Ron Hubbard and the military.

I have stated that I believe the title L. Ron Hubbard and the military does not comply with the purpose stated in WP:NC. This is the example I cited there, first I illustrated the concept of a reasonable minimum of ambiguity with a hypothetical, then applied it to Hubbard:

To a person who is unfamiliar with L. Ron Hubbard saying he was in the military means he could have been in any service within the whole entire military. It's a question of being specific about a subject which has many meanings. You're basically violating Wikipedia:List of policies#Content and Style

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Imagine a conversation between two people somewhere in the United States:

• • 1:"What does Bill do for a living?"
  • 2: "Bill is in the military."

2 said that Bill serves in the military, which means 2 might be talking about the Army, the Navy/Marines, or the Air Force. As far as 1 knows Bill could be: A) a SEAL, B) a M1A2 tank commander, C) a B-2 pilot, D) a LRRP, E) etc. (any job in the military).

• • 1:"Which part of the military?"
  • 2:"The Army."
  • 1:"What's he do in the Army?"
  • 2:"He flies an Apache."

1 had to ask two questions to receive the slightly ambiguous answer of Bill serving in the Army, and a third to get the specific answer of him flying a helicopter. Now I will apply this to the article name you've created,

• • 1: "Who was L. Ron Hubbard?"
  • 2: "He wrote books, served in the military, and created a religion called Scientology."
  • 1: "Where in the military?"
  • 2: "The Navy."
  • 1: "What ship was he on?"
  • 2: "Several..."

Saying someone is in the military is much more ambiguous than saying a person is in the Navy, Army, etc. which is itself ambiguous. Anynobody 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Topics within fictional universes

Currently, the de facto convention is to have Topic (fictional universe), like Magic (Harry Potter), or Topic and fictional universe, like Physics and Star Trek and Physics and Star Wars. I propose that we unify this to Topic in fictional universe, like Law in Star Trek. Any thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly seem an appropriate rule for things like law and magic that are common concepts outside of that fictional universe.

I came here on a related question: if there are two senses of a phrase, both only used in the same fictional universe and both with articles, should we include the name of the fictional universe in the titles of the articles? Examples would be Mon Calamari (i.e.: should Mon Calamari (planet) be Mon Calamari (Star Wars planet) or even Mon Calamari (fictional planet)), or Haldir of Lórien vs. Haldir (First Age). I'm particularly thinking of the first example though where the Mon Calamari are not a real planet or race, so the article name is misleading. An example that is currently dealt with very strangely would be Beregond and Beregond (Middle-earth) (both characters in Middle-earth).

I thought there was a policy on this, but I cannot find it.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)

We would be grateful for some input on the above guideline. The short paragraph in Wikipedia:Naming Conventions does not specify whether one or two parameters should be used to disambiguate school titles. The suggestion is that we follow the existing Wikipedia conventions for place names when disambiguating school articles. There are however so many inconsistencies in the existing policies that it is very difficult to decide on a consistent global policy for disambiguated school titles. There seems to be general consensus that schools in America and Canada should be disambiguated as Any High School (Municipality, State/Province). UK schools are currently disambiguated purely by place name, eg, Forest School (Walthamstow). We then however have schools in other countries where there do not seem to be any clear guidelines. For example, there is a New English School in Jubriya, Kuwait and another one in Amman, Jordan. There might well be other schools of the same name in other countries. Should these disambiguated by place name, by country, or by both place name and country? Dahliarose 09:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing name (for objects, people) in more then one language

There are often disputes on that languages (lang-XX templates) must be listed in article introduction section for objects, people, companies, metro stations etc. Issue arrice from fact that some editors believe that Russian names can be omitted or must be listed first, or transliteration must be listed for both Ukrainian and English. The only guideline I was able to find on this matter is WP:NCGN - but it referrer to geographical names and editors has objections that it's not applicable for others objects or people.

Is it possible for community to define correct set of guidelines for this ? For example 10% people rule using this alternative name, listing combination of English, Russian, Ukrainian names in foundation documents, listing names on official websites, usage of other language version in the past, etc... ? Thanks in advance for your support. --TAG 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We should write one; I think the principles of WP:NCGN have fairly wide support, and a similar page on people or things might well have consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed naming conventions for baseball players. The discussion on the guidelines can be viewed here and here. Please review the proposal here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for formal inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks, Caknuck 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New York City Subway station naming conventions

We at WikiProject New York City Public Transportation are voting on station naming conventions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention --NE2 12:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

General advice on abbreviations

Is there any general advice for merging of disambig pages for abbreviations, for example BAM was merged with Bam (taken from the list) and BAM now redirects to Bam. This seems sensible to me... A topic which has been discussed (Without a clear outcome) is ADA and Ada. Would it be sensible to merge these?? It seems confusing to have 2 different pages with significant overlap. Also, if these should be merged, which one should be the main article, ADA or Ada. Generally Ada would seem to be the sensible title, but how about disambig pages such as TFT which should then be called Tft with a redirect from TFT. My apologies if this has been discussed, but I couldn't find any information on it... NPalmius 02:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Victim of a crime

I came up with this title, rather than crime victim, victim-proneness (as suggested by WP:AR1), or victim (criminology). There is also an article on Victimization. I have redirected the other possible names to Victim of a crime. Is there any advice as to whether this is correct? I am not happy either with the content of the article as it stands. Should I request a renaming, a move or a merger? Bearian 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. Victimology is the other article, into which it could merge. Victim and Victimization both redirect to a disambiguation page. Bearian 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Input requested on requested move

At Talk:Ftr#Requested move, there is a proposal to move ftr to FTR (bus), claiming that the lower-case trademark "ftr" should be presented in standard English as all capitals. I don't see that the guideline explicitly addresses this situation, in that "ftr" is not really an acronym and perhaps not even strictly speaking an abbreviation. WP:MOSTM recommends that lower case trademarks like adidas should be presented as proper nouns and capitalized accordingly as "Addidas". Input on this question is welcome at Talk:Ftr#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposal for Tibetan naming conventions

Please see the new proposal I've proposed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan)/proposal 2 and discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan)/proposal 2. I also added a brief introduction here —Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial names

As it seems that some would want to deny that Palestinian People is a controversial name; I added it to the list so that everyone can see that it is similar to the other controversial names which include: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia. Itzse 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Human focussed vs. general articles

Let's say we have a subject that applies to both humans and other species (perhaps just animals, perhaps all forms of life, it doesn't matter). Now this subject is too broad not to have both an article describing it in general, and an article that deals only with the human aspects of it. A good example is cannibalism - it's widespread in many organisms, but there's also a huge amount that can be written about human cannibalism alone (and the term itself was originally used for humans, then borrowed by zoologists). Now the question here is what is the human-only article to be called? In this instance, it's called Cannibalism for humans, and Cannibalism (zoology) for the more general form. But in other cases an article is given the normal name for the more general article, and a human-specific attachment for the human focussed article. An example: Behavior vs. human behavior. But there seems to be no consistency in this area. This is no doubt a case by case matter, but there needs to be some general guidelines here for making such decisions. For example, the article on infanticide discusses humans only besides a two line mention at the bottom (at least as of today, I plan to expand it myself as time permits), but a huge article could easily be written without even mentioning the existence of humans. At this stage the only other article that briefly treats the subject is the cannibalism (zoology) article linked above, and the savaging article. Infanticide is by no means necessarily cannibalistic though, so eventually there will be need for an article on general animal infanticide. The question is what should be taken into account when deciding whether to place the article at Infanticide (zoology) or take over the infanticide article and shift most of the human material to human infanticide or something similar.

Possible factors that could be taken into account:

• Which article had the name to begin with (like the spelling rule, though I doubt this could suffice on its own)
• Whether the term applied to humans originally (in the case of cannibalism and infanticide this is an important consideration).
• Which article is the reader more likely to be looking for (but again, we're hardly going to redirect a geographic article to a recent movie or video game just because there are more readers looking for that).
• How greatly the subject applies to humans over other animals (for example if an article on humour in animals was created, it would be unlikely to take the existing one's name since there are few animals that show even a primitive and somewhat subjective form of humour. On the other hand, evolution is hardly going to be about humans only - it applies to all forms of life.
• How large each respective article is (again not ideal, but perhaps somewhat practical if one is very underdeveloped).

Richard001 09:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As you say, this really needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in general, I would advise the following. Where the topic in humans is not fundamentally different from that in other species (e.g. neither human behaviour nor human cannibalism are qualitatively different from other species' behaviour or cannibalism, although they may be much more complex and may have been studied in much greater detail), the generic title should be used for a general article, with a link to the human topic either as a hatlink, or above a section using summary style. Where the two are different (e.g. the human/vertebrate mandible is not homologous with the arthropod mandible; I'm sure there are better examples), then we apply the usual criteria laid down in the naming conventions for determining which, if any, takes the simple title and which will be disambiguated. That method would indeed suggest moving cannibalism to human cannibalism or cannibalism (anthropology), since H. sapiens is just one species in which it occurs, and even then rather rarely. I don't think that the argument about inwhich field the term was first used is important, only how the term is used now. Similarly, we should not use the article's current size as a measure of importance; we might use how big it could/should be, but not how big it is. Cannibalism (zoology) is currently a fractions of the size it could and should be. --Stemonitis 10:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I came over here from the infanticide article. I think the list of reasons to consider is a good one, and agree that much will have to be decided on a case by case basis. I would give more weight to what the reader is likely to be looking for, and how the term is used now. It would seem tedious to have many articles retitled, e.g. aggression (human). By this criterion, infanticide (zoology) would make sense. BrainyBabe 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A google search could also be considered as a criterion. For example with infanticide, all the first ten hits had nothing to do with zoology. But this is really just an extension of the 'what people are looking for' argument. Regarding renaming articles, this would only be done if there were two articles - we wouldn't rename human aggression as such simply because there could be such an article. But having said that, if there were two articles on aggression, it seems very inconsistent to have the aggression article on humans when aggression is a behavior, and behavior is not about only humans. Another example is play (activity), for which there is a great deal that could be written on the subject. Perhaps another criterion then would be what the 'parent' topic is named - for example all behaviors could be about all relevant species by default, unless there were additional circumstances requiring consideration for the article in question. Richard001 02:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming of buildings

Is there any consensus about the naming of buildings with ambiguous names? Buildings seem to be noticably absent from this guideline. There are rather a lot of buildings and the naming systems are in a complete mess. I've found a historical page called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture). I've tried browsing through some of the sub-categories within Category:Buildings and structures by country but there is no clear pattern. There is a complete lack of consistency both within countries and even within sub-divisions of countries. There seem to be two main formats: St. Peter's Church, Anytown and St. Peter's Church (Anytown). As far as I can establish the comma format seems to be the most prevalent for buildings. Place names are already disambiguated with the comma format but most other disambiguation pages (books, films, TV programmes etc) use the parentheses format. WikiProject Schools is trying to formulate a policy for the naming of schools at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools). The current suggestion is that the parentheses format should be used. Does this policy go against existing practice and consensus? There seems to be no point naming schools in one way, and then using a different format for churches and other buildings. Dahliarose 10:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming of US cities

The current guideline for the naming of cities is badly in need of change, and is in my opinion inconsistent with Wikipedia's other naming conventions, especially in regards to the United States section. Attempts to build consensus have stalled at the talk page. Please take a look at the discussion and give your opinion. Λυδαcιτγ 02:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

American football vs football

We are having a discussion on the College Football wikiproject about how to properly identify the American football team pages for each university. Input would be appreciated here. Currently, they are located at - "University X" "Nickname" football. I have proposed that they should be located at "University X" "Nickname" American football. Jmfangio| ►Chat  06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Consistency across Wikipedia

I would like some input on the naming of Animal colouration. The article is lifted from 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica and uses British English. But our article color uses US english. I don't like having daughter articles that use a different spelling - can't we just be consistent and use 'color' for all articles with color in the title? Another example might be behavior and animal behavior (in this case a bad example, since animal behavior just redirects to ethology...), but there are many such as this. Should consistency be given some (perhaps even greater) priority than the original name?

Speaking of which, I don't even see a reference to spelling differences for article names in the policy page. Shouldn't there be something about it? Richard001 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We generally do not recommend such changes, since they cause arguments grossly out of proportion with the amount of improvement that may result. However, if you can get consensus for the change on the article's talk page, it shouldn't be an issue, and we sometimes make similar renames for things like a category and its title article. So it's not totally out of the question. --tjstrf talk 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who moved it to its current name in the first place, so it's not like it has always been there. There reason I moved it is that the spelling in the article was not consistent with its title. But having a quick search it seems we have plenty of inconsistency in articles with 'color/colour' in the title, so I guess I'll just leave it as is until we come to considering a more general article on coloration, when the matter will no doubt come up again. Richard001 04:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Titles for Awards/Trophies

I have come across several articles that I'm not sure are properly titled. This could also be considered a wp:d issue, but i felt this was the best place. Example: The George S. Halas Trophy is handed out by the Newspaper Enterprise Association to "their" NFL Defensive Player of the year. There is also the George S. Halas Courage Award and the George Halas Trophy (given to the NFC champion. Shouldn't George S. Halas Trophy be renamed Newspaper Enterprise Association Defensive Player of the Year Award? Jmfangio| ►Chat  17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalizing band names and misspellings on purpose vs. the current guidelines

Reviving this discussion from Archive #10.
Yes, I know there has been much talk about it but nevertheless I feel the need to rediscuss the word "unique" in WP:NC#Album_titles_and_band_names. In Talk:Of_Montreal#of_Montreal_or_Of_Montreal we argued about whether the title should be changed to "of Montreal". I argued for it, because I think "unique" has to be interpreted to be consistent with WP:V and if we have enough sources to confirm a certain spelling (like in this case interviews and album titles who all stress the lower-case "o" as correct (and pages like last.fm changing it)). PEJL argued that the interpretation of "unique" as it currently is does not allow it which I think collides with WP:V but before using WP:IAR to just change it, I wanted to get some more input. --SoWhy ^Talk 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would pipe up defending the normalization of capitalization of titles since, as noted in the previous discussion linked above, the consensus and general practice is to do so. I can understand why no-one has, as this has been discussed numerous times in the past, as noted for example here (referenced from the discussion above). Proponents of not normalizing capitalization often mention that the guideline uses the phrase "unless it is unique". As I said on Talk:Of Montreal, I believe this phrase "is often misunderstood, and in practice generally disregarded. From what I can tell that clause stems from an attempt to allow for alternate capitalization for classical music." Perhaps someone here remembers the intent of the phrase when it was added? I think it would be most helpful if that phrase was clarified, to avoid these repeated discussions in the future. --PEJL 11:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, you said how you think "unique" is to be understood. I disagree with that on basis that no guideline should lead to including information that we know is wrong and if it's only a single letter. Based on WP:V it is impossible to have it written in a way that contradicts every official source and the band's own statements. It's basically a choice between following a guideline and including correct information. I for myself think, no guideline is that powerful that it forces us to capitalize things wrong on purpose. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If no-one here can explain precisely how the "unless it is unique" clause is meant to be interpreted, I propose we remove it. --PEJL 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I did so. --PEJL 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Article renamed Azali needs to be returned back to Bayani

Note that Bahai sectarians have attempted at every turn to stamp such articles even peripherally relevent to them with their own sectarian narrative and propaganda whereby wikipedia has turned into an information-war battle field of a sectarian war and whereby it is being used by the Bahais specifically at every turn as a mouth piece for their own exclusive sectarian propaganda-narrative. The article renamed Azali needs to be changed back to Bayani. I have spelled out my reasons in the discussions. I have also tagged the article because its neutrality is clearly questionable especially given that at every turn the Bahais are attempting to insert their propaganda-driven narrative and deride other, smaller groups and their history. If wikipedia is in fact a propaganda arm of the Bahai religion whereby all other groups are to be bullied by these people and their histories and very existences whitewashed, then it behooves Wikipedia to spell this out so that we know we are not dealing with an objective portal of facts, but rather the privileging of a sectarian narrative that has nothing to do with history. Thamarih 06:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all academic sources call the group Azalis or Azali Babis. As MARussellPESE already showed from Talk:Azali:

"E.G. Browne coined the term and refers to Azal's followers as "Ezelís" or "Azalis" prior to Baha'u'llah's death (1892):

• Browne, E.G. (1889), "Bábism", Religious Systems of the World: A Contribution to the Study of Comparative Religion, London: Swann Sonnenschein
• Browne, E.G. (1891), A Travellers Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab, Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. (See Notes D & W.)
• Browne, E.G. (Ed.) (1918). Materials for the Study of the Babi Religion. Cambridge University Press. pp. (See the Table of Contents.).

"Azali" is also the term currently, and exclusively, used by non-Baha'i scholars including:

Cole

• Cole (1991). "The Objectivity Question' and Baha'i Studies: A Reply to MacEoin". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. Vol. 18 (No. 1): pp. 82-85. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

• Cole (1992). "Iranian Millenarianism and Democratic Thought in the Nineteenth Century Middle East". International Journal of Middle East Studies. Vol. 24: pp. 1-26. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
• See also his personal website

MacEoin (See Iranica below)

and others:

• Manuchehri, Sepehr (1999). "The Practice of Taqiyyah (Dissimulation) in the Babi and Bahai Religions". Research Notes in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies. Vol. 3 (no. 3). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

It's sufficiently pervasive that the mainline encyclopedia's use it:

• Britannica
• Iranica"

Based on the MoS the Azali term is by far the more common term, and the above user is using original research to want to rename the article. -- Jeff3000 12:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this. This article has already been through an uncontested move request. MARussellPESE 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for works of art?

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, or if this is covered somewhere else, but I was wondering what conventions should be followed for naming pages for works of art, such as paintings, sculptures, etc.

At this point there doesn't seem to be any set rules for titles of art, with Wikipedians adding in brackets the medium (as in Ship of Fools (painting)), the artist's name ( Adoration of the Magi (Gentile da Fabriano)), the artist's name and the medium (The Kiss (Rodin sculpture)), or the artist's name and in what city the piece currently resides (Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington)) as a disambiguation.

So are there set rules for naming works of art at this point? If not they should probably be put in place. It seems very disorganized this way. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably something to raise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts first, so I will copy yours & this there, & would suggest the discussion is continued there initially. Personally I think, at least for paintings with common titles, the Title (artist) convention is certainly best. It was originally Annunciation (van Eyck), but as I point out on the talk page there, he and his relatives painted about 6, so I moved it. I wonder if there is only one Adoration of the Magi (Gentile da Fabriano) - there are certainly many Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Rubens)'s, though I think the article covers the most famous. With an unusual title like Ship of Fools (painting) I think this formula is ok, but Nativity (painting) is obviously useless. Johnbod 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So what's the deal? It's been over a month and no one has proposed anything yet. -- Grandpafootsoldier 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There might be a case for doing away with the medium as disambiguator – doesn't Sunflowers (Van Gogh), after all, sound better than Sunflowers (series of paintings)? The convention that's emerged is to use the format Title (artist), as rightly noted by Johnbod, with Title (artist, city) as second preference. There's no reason for a title like The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) unless it has to be disambiguated from The Kiss (Rodin painting) or some such.

An old way of disambiguating the names of the myriad different Madonna and Childs etc. produced by a single artist was to tack the name of a past owner onto them, e.g. Aldobrandini Madonna, Mond Crucifixion, Benois Madonna and so on. Wherever such titles exist it would be good to use them to relieve the tedium of multiple works with generic titles such as Portrait of a Young Man et al. We might consider changing The Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John the Baptist to the less cumbersome Burlington House Cartoon on this basis. (Note how all the words in this kind of title – Ghent Altarpiece, Borghese Gladiator – are capitalised. I explained here (scroll down) why I think that's desirable, even if it would seem to go against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).)

Use of the definite article is also worth discussing – why The Flagellation (Piero della Francesca) but Resurrection (Piero della Francesca)? Apologies for not noticing this discussion sooner; I am however very interested in working on an Art Manual of Style. Ham 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect name

I feel someting should be added in about how a correct name favours over a common and incorrect name. I have ecountered several move request that vote in favour of the incorrect name simply because it is more common. What have we become? A supermarket tabloid? We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia that gives correct information. Can we please introduce a new policy on this? Reginmund 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide an example so we have some context? Are we talking about drug names, species names...? Richard001 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, this issue is being discussed at WT:ALBUM#Album article names vs WP:UCN, where the issue of album titles which include quotation marks has been brought up. Am I right in interpreting WP:NC#Avoid non alpha-numeric characters used only for emphasis as not applicable to proper names such as album titles (because the quotation marks aren't used "only for emphasis" for such titles)? --PEJL 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Some stubborn Wikipedians are saying that the Millennium Dome is still the common term for The O2 (the name of the facility was changed a few months ago). They are using the defence that the media still uses the term. A Google search indicates that The O2 gets 35 times more hits than the Millennium Dome[7][8]. They still use the defence that it is the "common name" even though it is wrong. On the Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster article, Wikipedians are voting to change the name to "Big Ben" since it is the more common name (and they are currently in the lead), even though it says that it is incorrect at the top of the article cited by three different sources. As an encyclopaedia, I think we should incorporate the correct names of things like this. That is, after all, the purpose of the encyclopaedia―to learn things... the right way. Reginmund 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Define incorrect. If the name is in common use, it doesn't incorporate POV, it doesn't misrepresent its subject, and it doesn't cause confusion, then it is correct, is it not? Jacob Haller 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That is my point is that it does. By using the common but incorrect name (see the page on the Clock Tower, we are further contributing to the incorrect usage. Reginmund 06:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you propose be added to the naming conventions page then? Richard001 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A facility or company etc. should be referred to by its proper name over its colloquial name, especially if that name is deemed incorrect (i.e. Clock Tower, palace of Westminster not Big Ben). If a name of a facility is changed, the Wikipedia article on the facility should change with it, even if the facility is still colloquially refered to by its predecissive name (i.e. The O2 not Millennium Dome). This probably should be noted here also. Reginmund 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given what names are (ways people identify things), the colloquial name (how people actually identify the thing) is by definition the correct name (how people actually identify the thing). Official names are useful only when they avoid confusion, and are useless when they create it. Jacob Haller 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That contradicts itself as suc colloquial names like "Big Ben" even though it is very common is deemed completely incorrect by three different sources on the article. When the official name is used in both cases, it doesn't create confusion at all, it just reminds us of what is correct. (i.e. the Millennium Dome is incorrect nowadays) and although it is still sometimes used, it is still incorrect as the name of the facility has changed and I think we should remind people of that. Reginmund 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The name is whatever people call it. If the town. company, etc. doesn't change what people call it it hasn't really changed its name. Since most things have more than one name, I'm all for using which name creates the least confusion, and includes the least bias; I'm not for privileging an "official name" over the actual names people use. I'm not sure what people actually call the structure. I'm not editing those pages. Jacob Haller 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And what if people call it by its incorrect name? If something has changed its name then it doesn't mean that it hasn't just because people call it something else. The name that would create the least confusion would be the correct name and not the colloquial name since the colloquial name would be deemed either slang or retro. We are an encyclopedia. We should report on what is right, not what is wrong just because some people think it is right. Otherwise, why don't we just assume that all urban legends are true? Reginmund 08:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I'm in broad agreement with Reginmund - as an encyclopaedia we should be use official, proper ("correct") names wherever they exist. The only problem with this is where an entity has several official names, or where an official name is disputed (such as with the British Isles). My preference for the policy would be to always use the official name (with appropriate redirects from other common names). Where there is no official name, or where an official name is disputed (or there are several official names), then use the current policy of using the most common name. Waggers 10:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a definite undercurrent in the various WP:RM debates I've seen over the last several months, that a fair number of people would prefer to see more weight given to the official status of a name. It's often the newer users who express the view, since they're not always familiar with the "use common names" guideline, whereas more experienced editors, while not necessarily agreeing with it, have at least learnt to live with it. There are of course already exceptions to the common names guideline: notably, articles on royalty deliberately eschew vernacular appellations, and WikiProject Plants now advises editors to use scientific names rather than common names in almost all cases. There must be plenty of other exceptions that I'm not familiar with, as well. Perhaps it is time for a fundamental re-think of the naming guidelines, in order to shift the balance towards more "encyclopaedic" official names and away from simply choosing the most frequent term. Naming already involves a weighing-up of various (often conflicting) factors, so the advice could be changed without necessarily precipitating masses of page moves. (Indeed, most meaningful WP:RM discussions are, implicitly at least, about how much weight to give to conflicting pieces of advice.) Specifically, the addition of text along the lines of "Where an official name exists, it should be granted more weight than other names" could achieve much of what Reginmund wants (as I understand it). It would need to be agreed by a broad consensus first, but such a change would be feasible, and could be quite effective. --Stemonitis 10:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm most definitely up for that. I'm in that latter category of experienced users who don't like the current policy but have learned to live with it. Given that there are already exceptions being made to the policy in a wide variety of areas, and that there's (apparently) a common dislike of the current purely popularity-based convention, perhaps now is indeed the time to push for such a change. As you say, it would need a broad consensus - hopefully that can be achieved. Waggers 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very wary of this indeed, especially as it relates to foreign names, of places and people. These are the ones that attract the most impassioned debates, especially when two different (non-English) nationalities are involved, like Giulio Clovio and Gernika-Lumo. If this goes through, watch out for Domenicos Theotokopoulos, Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, (the article name until I changed it recently), Paolo Cagliari, and many more. We have WP:COMMONNAME for a reason, and I support it. The O2/Dome dispute is just about what the common name actually is currently - clearly there is a process of change going on, but personally I think the Dome is still ahead for now. Johnbod 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What I am most concerned about is the fact that this rule has been pushed so far that even the names that have been considered the most blatantly official have been questioned. Things like "British Isles" I can understand why that would create some heat as they aren't a national entity, but things like The O2 have only one name and anything is colloquial and should be considered subordinate from the page's title. The use of the common name policy over the correct name tends to bring superfluous heat which is uneccesary. It makes us look like a supermarket tabloid. I would definitely support a change in rules. Reginmund 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And with the foreign name thing, the wording can be that the official English-language name is used. And again, if there isn't an "official" English name, the policy reverts to the most commonly used English name as opposed to a foreign-language official name. Problem solved. Waggers 08:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - isn't the official name "The O2 Arena" as opposed to "The O2"? Waggers 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some options for discussion

Option 1

• Where a single English-language official name exists, this is the name that should be used for the article.
• Where there are several official English-language names, (ie. different countries have different official names for an entity) OR where there is no official English-language name, use the most commonly used English language name unless specific naming conventions dictate otherwise (ie. the current policy).

Option 2

• Always use the most commonly-used English language name unless specific naming conventions dictate otherwise (ie. the current policy).

Option 3

• Where a single English-language official name exists, this is the name that should be used for the article.
• Where there are several official English-language names, (ie. different countries have different official English-language names for an entity), and the article has strong ties to a one of those countries, use that country's official English-language name for the entity.
• Where there are several official English-language names, (ie. different countries have different official English-language names for an entity), and the article has no strong ties any one of those countries in particular, use the most commonly used English language name unless specific naming conventions dictate otherwise (ie. the current policy).
• Where there is no official English-language name, use the most commonly used English language name unless specific naming conventions dictate otherwise (ie. the current policy).

Waggers 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth adding to any/all of these options that where an unofficial name is massively more commonly used, it should be used as the title; it must be possible for very common names to outdo uncommon official names, albeit less often than under the current guidelines. This means that the change would be just a shift in weight of the various aspects of naming rather than a complete overhaul, and also allows for more common sense in naming. As an example, the "South Island Wren" is not called that anywhere where it lives, and a recent move request saw it moved unanimously to Rock Wren (New Zealand) in defiance of the "official" name. I also expect that if any "official" name is given outright preference, as you seem to suggest, it will lead to arguments over what counts as official, which are likely to be very divisive. --Stemonitis 09:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be necessary, but leads to further definition issues. I still prefer option 2, the existing policy. I would rather have Kingston upon Thames than The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, which I think the other options would lead to. Johnbod 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not quite sure I understand what would qualify as an "official name". A person, certainly, has an official name. It is clear that we should use that name. Also businesses and various organisations have an official name, by virtue of their legal status. I have never heard of a building having an "official name". My guess is that the only "official name" for Big Ben, is something like "Listed building (Class X) number 2395102945". Although it may be discribed on the planning applocation as "the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster", this is a discription, not a name. My guess is that trying to apply such a rule to buildings, sports, wars, artistic movements etcetera will only cause arguments as to what constitutes an "official name". Thehalfone 14:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

True; we haven't renamed Whistler's Mother as "Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist's Mother", nor have we renamed Uranus as "Georgium Sidus". At the other extreme, the most common name for February is "Febuary". Assuming no Option 2 partisans want to rename the February article accordingly, no possible policy will eliminate all the arguments. Art LaPella 05:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a pertinent example, since "Febuary" is not at all common in writing.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of eliminating arguments. There are already arguments and there always will be, unless we adopt some very restrictive blanket policy (which is neither likely nor desirable). The only intention is to make it more likely that the somehow "proper" names will be chosen instead of the somehow less proper common names. Buildings can definitely have official names, as Reginmund's original example of The O2 demonstrates. There are many other stadia where the naming rights are for sale. Actually, I think stadia with naming rights are the worst sort of official names, because they will change every time the advertising contract is changed, but they are official names nonetheless. Uranus does appear to be the official name sanctioned by the IAU, and "Whistler's Mother" is massively more common than "Aranngement…", so I don't think either of those would be affected by the proposed change. There are separate articles for the settlement Kingston upon Thames and the larger Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, so that would also be unaffected. It could probably be worded in such a way that places would not be forced to long-winded titles anyway — I can't think of a phrasing at the moment, but there must be a way of saying that one should drop all the "Independent People's Democratic Republic of…" guff from a name and just leave the core behind. Better examples might include Hull and Holland; the city is at Kingston upon Hull rather than Hull (city), and the area people normally mean when they say "Holland" is (correctly) at the Netherlands. --Stemonitis 06:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was pushing what I was trying to say a little bit far. My main point was that an article's name doen't necessary have to be official, but possibly a shortening [i.e. United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)]. Obviously, just "United Kingdom" is acceptable, especially among the government. However, if a name is considered incorrect, it should not be the title of the article, regardless of how common it is. I don't see how that would be an ambiguous rule to enforce. Reginmund 08:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two fundamental problems with official names, which is why I oppose using them, except as a tie-breaker. First, this is the English wikipedia; we are here to communicate with English-speakers. "Do not be the first by whom the new is tried/ nor yet the last to lay the old aside". We should not use "official names" when English doesn't.

Secondly, official names very rapidly get us into the question: who is official? Consider Shatt al-Arab; the Arabs call it that, the Iranians call it Arvand Rud (both with several transliterations). How to decide which? Because English uses, and English-speakers will recognize, Shatt al-Arab.

No, using both names won't work. Whevever we've tried that, it doesn't make peace; the rival claimants invariably quarrel about the order of the names. There's a classic case of this on WP:LAME, search for Bolzano-Bozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case of a river, there is no reason not to use the English name. Here's why: in contrast to the O2, it is not a corporate entity and thus doesn't have naming rights to it. However, The O2 does. Reginmund 22:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in a lawyers view about what "naming rights" actually are. As far as I understand having read Naming rights, it is merely a contract by which one gets a company to agree to call (eg their stadium) by the name that one chooses. I don't see how this makes it an official name. It is a commercial name, certainly but anyone else can call the stadium anything they like. It's name is what people call it, and the most appropriate name for us to use is the one that the most people call it, regardless of who has paid who money. Thehalfone 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should go earlier in this section, but people seem to be appending chronologically. The 3rd paragraph figures seemed flawed. The google links searched for the words "millennium" and "dome", not the phrase "millennium dome;" same issue with "the" and "o2." Here are my 2007-07-24 results for google.co.uk web searches:

• "the o2" 1,190,000 results
• "millennium dome" 639,000 results
• "millenium dome" 127,000 results(misspelled with one N)

Many (80%?) of the "the o2" results are not about the venue. Five of the first 20 results for "the o2" were about the phone company "o2," not the renamed "millennium dome" for which the phone company is currently licensing naming rights. By the tenth page of google results for "the o2," five are about the phone company, three are about the molecule, and two are about the entertainment complex, and further pages seem to have an increasing proportion of molecular references, so of 1,190,000 "the o2" references, perhaps only 20% of those refer to the renamed "millennium dome." Agyle 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposition: three "base" Wiki-wide article-naming methods - People, Places and Things.

I'm a bit concerned at the seemingly chaotic nature of Wikipedia's naming schemes, namely for its (settlement) conventions: these vary according to the level of "international" knowledge of contributing Wikipidians, as well as the "regional" tastes of the same when contributing to articles about their own region. While using "local" disambiguation methods makes comprehension easy for those originating from the same region as the article, the same does not at all take into account the search methods of readers originating from countries foreign to the same. Not only this, but intermixing disambiguation schemes do not seem to take their subject into account; this is important. Recognition of "subject" is an instinctive first step of comprehension for a reader seeing an article title for the first time - and it would be very helpful to use a constant method to make this clear for the same (especially when the same non-disambiguated word may be two of these subjects: take Cork for example). Conflicting naming methods also cause confusion (in English Wiki the comma is used both for disambiguation (in places) and titles (in names).

Based on my observations, it is for reasons of easy identifiability that most respectable mainstream reference works use three article-naming methods: One for People, another for Places, and the third for Things (entities).

The below most probably will repeat already-existing methods and conventions, but for reasons of clarity I think it best to present this suggestion, in excluding any citations and references to existing Wiki rules, as an independent essay in logic and rationality as a whole. The below has only the functionality of Wiki as a media as a whole in mind.

People

Printed reference works often use "Lastname, Firstname (title)" (the latter with or without parenthesis): this "People" method (namely for for alphabetisation purposes) is in use by most English publications and easily identifiable by readers of the same.

Yet Wiki has no need for such methods, as it is not an alphabetised list. A chosen method should all the same be consistent in order to retain its identifiability for the reader. After much thinking about the both the media that is Wiki (technology, organisation schemes), I have concluded that a functional "People" method would be:

• Complete Name, title [, second title] (disambiguation)
• eg: Henry Talbot
• or: Henry Talbot (author)
• or: Sir Henry Talbot
• or: Sir Henry Talbot, Duke of Cork
• or: Sir Henry Talbot, Duke of Cork (Norway)
• or: Sir Henry Talbot, Duke of Cork (author, Norway)

The reasons for this are multiple. Firstly: the "People" method would retain its identifiability through its use of the comma, as I propose that "People" be the only subject that uses the comma outside of parenthesis (not for disambiguation) in contrast to other methods (please see the sections below). People's names, named thus, with very few exceptions, can be recognised as such; disambiguation will also be recognised as such thanks to a constant use of parenthesis () for the same.

Places

Places are the most problematic of all three categories. Placenames are repeated sometimes even within same regions, and often across several countries: thus a naming method for the same should make every effort to accommodate a sometimes very extensive disambiguation. Another plus for a "Places" method would be that its disambiguation (easily identifiable as such) reflect the international aspects of English Wikipedia: using low-level administrative regions only as disambiguation pays no thought at all to this. For this I also think it would be useful to "locate" placenames properly - without exception, at least as a base. Also, readers from one country looking for "Placename" in another will practically never use "local region" as a second term in their search query; articles named thus are lacking here, too. For these reasons I suggest:

• Placename (Country [, further subdivision])
• eg: Bartleston (Zimbabwe)
• or: Bartleston (Zimbabwe, Dakar County)

...this will no doubt displease more than a few who have worked hard to make articles of their contribution reflect the language they are accustomed to using with their own countrymen in their everyday lives, but again, such a methodology of comfort does not pay any thought at all to foreign researchers or Wiki as an international media, nor does it pay any thought Wiki as a whole. I think the above method, if consistent, although sometimes requiring much disambiguation, would be the best method as it answers the media's need for international recognition of placenames, searchability, and "Places" subject identifiability.

Things (Entities)

This subject is the simplest of the three:

• Thing (disambiguation)
• eg: Wayne's World (movie)
• or: University of York
• or: Paranoid (movie, 2000)
• or: Paranoid (album, Black Sabbath)

...my examples above are perhaps a tad inventive. Anyhow, the possibilities of disambiguation are endless (descriptive, sub-topic, etc.), but through all this it is most important that disambiguation be recognised as such for clarity - thus the choice of parentheses through all three suggestions above. I might also like to suggest that possibly ambiguous terms be disambiguated with an identifier... Perhaps one clarification: A "thing in a place" where the place is an integral part of the thing's title is still gets "thing treatment": University of York is an entity with its own identity and title - it is a thing. As are Fjords of Norway. Disambiguation in the logic of the above, if needed (not here), would be "University of York (Canada)", just like any other "Thing".

Other Issues

The above is an essay on a base system that covers as much as Wiki as possible. No doubt, no matter the method used, there will always be some conflicts and exceptions, but the above is the best means I have found to date to keep these to a minimum. I'm sure that some will provide conflict examples as a criticism of the above, but I'm certain that these will remain infinitely minor in number in comparison to the total weight of Wiki articles. If they're not, well, we've got something more to talk about below.

Another issue may be Consensus-created "exceptions" (such as non-disambiguated "famous" placenames), but this is a second level of debate - and one, in my humble opinion, that should only be imposed upon an already-functional and coherent article naming system.

Fire away. THEPROMENADER 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

My first thought was that this discussion should take place on the talk pages of WP:NAME, WP:PLACES and WP:NAMEPEOPLE. Disambiguation cannot be done satisfactorily unless there is agreement on naming conventions. Chris the speller 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the above proposition is a co-ordination of different article-naming conventions, it would be best to discuss this at the root somewhere (between all three). Granted, perhaps here was not the best place for this proposition. I don't think it would be useful to split things up; in a way it is simplification proposition between Wiki's many conventions. Any suggestions about a one place this question should go? THEPROMENADER 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved topic here from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. - THEPROMENADER 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• These considerations are appropriate for the Semantic wiki, where a system for names would be well received. For initial article creation, as on Wikipedia itself, the naming conventions would be a little restrictive, however. Chaos has its place, as in the gas phase of matter. Not all things are gases, there can be liquids and solids; the more formal proposal for names would be appropriate for Semantic wiki, which is meant to be a layer above this wiki. --Ancheta Wis 09:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the terms "chaos" and "encyclopaedia" to be contradictory ideas - how is it possible to inform when that information cannot be easy to find? The above proposition is very basic, and there is no logical reason that a like idea cannot be implemented - its biggest obstacle will be contributor personal taste. There is no excuse for chaos in an encyclopaedia - especially when it need not be. THEPROMENADER 09:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It seems like this could be simplified (if slightly mis-described) by simply saying: Describe things by their shortest common name, and disambiguate everything with parenthesized expressions; and put people's titles after their names. I suspect you'll get a vast pile of screaming from the place name people, but heck, we have bots galore now -- it should be easy enough to automate a changeover. As I said, I like it. Go to. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I also like it, I think something like this is sorely needed. This is also an opportunity to revisit the discussion on "official names" above, as the splitting of Wikipedia by subject type in this way lends itself to identifying subject types where "official names" may be appropriate. A note of caution around the disambiguation between "places" and "things" is needed, though, and that's with geographical "things". A mountain or range of mountains is nearly always a "thing" as opposed to a "place", but islands and groups of islands, or other land masses, tend to cause more difficulty. In particular, would the following be "places" or "things": Europe / Continental Europe / the European Union; the British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom; I'm sure there are other examples where apparently geographical entities (things) have become controversial due to politics. Waggers 10:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. It took me some time, a lot of observation, a lot of (involvement in naming) discussion and a lot of thought to make this a simple idea.

Concerning the above comment: good points, but I think you're right to give mountain ranges and the like the "thing" treatment - they are named entities, but entities all the same, as they are not political in most cases... perhaps it is there we should draw the line. I can almost imagine two "Galapagos islands" articles - one "settlement" article on the political situation (it is a province of Equador) and its inhabitants, titled "Galapagos islands (Equador)", and another on the islands themselves as an entity (situation, nature, etc) titled simply "Galapagos islands. Sound okay? It is important to imagine "grey" situations (to better erase them) when drawing new guidelines - KISS has to remain the rule, or the idea will never fly ! Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are still issues. I still believe that we need to look at this with a focus on a style sheet. Otherwise, we are still going to have overlaps and other dab issues. With a good style sheet, these overlaps could be reduced. Lets look at things and places. The current naming convention avoids conflicts. We have Lake Placid (New York) for the lake, Lake Placid (Texas) for the other lake and then Lake Placid, New York for the town. By having slightly different conventions for places and things we have very nicely avoided a name conflict. If the proposal is name the places something like Lake Placid (lake, New York) then we have added a double level of disambiguation. So our selected style can avoid or create confusion that needs undoing or extra disambiguation. The current system is clear and simple in separating places and things. Vegaswikian 05:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What issues? The above propositon is a style sheet study. If you're going to suggest that the proposed system "will make conflcts", you have to provide examples of the same, and prove that these will be even more numerous than conflicts in the existing system. I see with diffictulty how different conventions in every country, without any mention of that country in the resutling article name, can cause less conflict.

On that note, concerning your example: to the reader, what's the difference between Lake Placid (New York) and Lake Placid, New York - ? What is wrong with clear disambiguation - double or not, at least the Lake Placid (lake, USA) would be clear. The above comment, although lacking any real argument, does show quite clearly where the present naming system can be improved. THEPROMENADER 07:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to advocate that a short title is preferred for every article until a need is identified for a longer title, then the titles should be extended only by inserting terms separated by commas in parentheses. It needs to specify the "need" - a competing article, or only a competing potential article? Does that mean we'd have to have Calculus, Calculus (differential), calculus (integral), calculus (logic, propositional), calculus (logic, predicate) etc instead of the current guideline requiring differential calculus, integral calculus etc? I also think it's better to move an article early in its life (if required) to put it in the "right" place, rather than having to move articles later when they are established (with more incoming links), to accommodate new topics either in Wikipedia or in the world. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the above about any preference of "shortest names", it only describes the method that should be used should disambiguation be needed. Following the guideline logic, if differential calculus is a "thing" unto itself, there should be no need to disambiguate it! THEPROMENADER 15:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Every person and place is potential for a naming conflict in the shortest title form, as other things are named after them. I think it's a good idea to have (en-)wikipedia-wide naming conventions that make it easy to correctly name articles about different kinds of thing to different unique names. For example is Porsche about a person or the car company he founded? Is Ford Prefect a car or a Hitchhiker's Guide character? Is Oklahoma a city, a state, a terrorist event or a musical? The right answer depends on the context. Some of these might be obvious based on the number of incoming links, or the number of searches that the searcher intended to find a particular meaning (difficult to measure), but it might be better if we could always make the shortest form a disambig page and put all articles at longer titles (such as we do Firstname Lastname for most people at present). --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the context part, but not so sure about the "number of incoming links" - the reader never sees this. Search terms should also be (very!) thought about when formulating article titles - it is these that come up top in the results. Under the above proposition Oklahoma would be taken care of as a place as Oklahoma (United States, Oklahoma) to speak of the city - but it of course is arguable that Oklahoma (state, United States) would be clearer to the reader than Oklahoma (United States) when speaking of the state... but this case is very exceptional. THEPROMENADER 15:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, I like the idea. But the above example, though illustrative, is inaccurate as the name of the city is Oklahoma City, not Oklahoma. --Serge 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As a means of gathering further discussion, I intend to make a few selected renamings of prominent articles, and reference this proposal in the edit summary. Let me know if you don't want me to do this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now done this with the two towns called Lake Forest. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means, anything to bring attention to the matter - but that's a rather "bolstering" method : ) I see by the below that it's already worked - ! THEPROMENADER 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lake Forest (United States, California)" No offense, but that's horrible. It isn't a usage that any reader or editor would guess. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, doing this for the vast majority of cases is only a good thing. I think we really need to promote dab pages as a better default for the main article space when there are,or will be, conflicts. Vegaswikian 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is there not to understand in that article title? Will the reader not know what or where it is or something? THEPROMENADER 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If I were looking for Lake Forest, California that isn't the term I'd use to search. And if I were editing an article and adding the term that isn't one that would come to mind. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and you would still find it! Better still, were you not from the U.S., and didn't know that Lake Forest was in California (but knew that it was in the U.S.), you would still find it. What's not intuitive about that? THEPROMENADER 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope we can find a simpler, more elegant way of solving the problem. What problem is it that we're solving, anyway? The major issues I see coming up with place names aren'tt over how to disambiguate between different places with identical names, but how to choose among different names for the same place. How would this address the "Danzig/Gdansk" naming problems? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig - it doesn't. "What name to use" is a complete other issue than anything covered above. THEPROMENADER 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation isn't the (only) issue - subject identifiability is another improvement that can be made. THEPROMENADER 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the below to here to the (clearly marked) "comments" section - an exchange within the proposition itself would drown it, obviously. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• (Moved from Introduction) This is a non-wiki solution for a non-problem. Local consistency, within a given subject or category, is all we can reasonably hope for; we do not need to ordain a wiki-wide structure on this page, which many of our editors will never see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the point of your rather declarative assumptions - others here seem to see this "need" that you don't, and even like the proposition - taste is not function, and "local consistency" is perhaps a desire for some, but for an international publication it is certainly not a last resort. Far from it - it's a narrow-minded fault. THEPROMENADER 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right; you don't get it. There can, and probably should be, consistency within a subject or a category; we should not attempt a doctrinaire consistency across the entire wiki. It will not succeed in being universal , and it will be oppressive and stupid insofar as it is tried. Working bottom-up allows each field to be disambiguated as appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• (moved from "people") Largely useless, since it gives no guidance whatever on which of the possible names and disambiguators for Sir Henry Talbot is to be used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So we should throw the whole idea away for... what it doesn't cover? And about this "lacking", what is there not to understand in the proposed "people" guideline - ? The examples of possible disambiguation there are many. THEPROMENADER 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. The last thing Wikipedia needs is an inflexible top-down system imposed on this page, which many editors will never see. Better to disambiguate article by article, subject by subject, and deal with each problem separately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what? There are examples of disambiguation in the example (even though this is not the main issue here), and I don't see what "top down" has to do with "People". Even then, I don't think it's for one Wikipedian to decide what Wiki "needs". THEPROMENADER 06:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• (moved from "other issues") This proposal is contrary to English usage. I strongly oppose it on that ground, here and elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "English usage", exactly? Vague grounds for such a vehement opposition. THEPROMENADER 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We should call people, places, and things what the English language calls them. We agreed on that long ago, and it is a service to our readers to keep on with it. Often, English has ways of dealing with ambiguity. We should use them; not invent our own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed where? At "settlements" naming conventions - are you saying that these isolated rules should apply to all Wiki then? Nothing in the above goes against any Wiki convention at all - it is in fact the "settlement" convention that does this. I do not think a local manner of speaking is a requisite for an international recognition and comprehension of article titles - quite the opposite, actually, thus the proposition. I have yet to see any real argument proving that readers won't understand the above method - just declarations that they won't. This is not reasoned debate. THEPROMENADER 06:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to somewhere in this section. I've reverted the WP:POINTy renames. If he hadn't propagated the double redirects, I would have considered it "good faith", but violating almost all of WP:NAME is not the way to attempt to reach consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I do consider the renaming bold, but it was not disruptive in any way, nor do I see how it violated any part of WP:NAME. In any case, it certainly got your attention : ) I'll look into the double-redirects issue; I've not yet had a chance to really look at the changes made. THEPROMENADER 06:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after thought, I consider reverting these changes itself to be questionable: the WP:NAME policy states that any form of disambiguation will do for placenames - parentheses, province, state, country - and the "settlement" convention is but a guideline "not written in stone" as clearly stated in its heading. There was no opposition at all to the pages having been moved, in spite of the reason for the move having been clearly stated in the page-move comment, so a single-handed no-discussion reverting of the same is unwarrented.

The above is a proposition to change naming convention policy, and, although it may counter the tastes of some proponents of certain local non-official guidelines, those defending the latter should discuss the proposed changes instead of knee-jerk reverting changes - changes that counter in no way any existing policy - made to provide a secluded example for the benefit of, and to encourage, that very discussion. THEPROMENADER 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what some of the folks who disagree with this proposal are trying to say is this: In the US, a common way to refer to towns is with the form town-name, state-name; this form has the advantage that it is far less ambiguous than another other common form, town-name alone. Since, in the US, both of these forms are "common names" (in the sense WP:NAME uses it), Wikipedia can use either of them, and (as WP:NAME says) we should prefer one of them to using an explicit disambiguation phrase in the article name. The reason we don't refer to towns in Uganda with the form, town-name, province-name is that (so far) no-one has made a credible case that town-name, province-name is a common form for Ugandan town names. So, when the town name itself is ambigous, we have to fall back on explicit parenthetical disambiguation. Does this make sense to anybody? JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, save for the fact that: common usage to the inhabitants of one country is not the same to those living in a foreign other. THEPROMENADER 20:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Paired reference

How do we deal with articles that need to be named using two equally important words. For example, Mass-to-charge ratio and Charge-to-mass ratio (see Talk:Mass-to-charge_ratio, which amazingly features an edit war by particle physics anoraks), or Anglo-American relations versus British-American relations.

My suggestion: (1) Order the operative words according to what is most common, such as by doing a Google count, otherwise (2) Order the operative words by alphabetical order Kransky

Tîrgu Mureş not Târgu Mureş

Hi, please change the name of the citz Târgu Mureş to Tîrgu Mureş. That's how is written in official acts.

I also had a talk with the municipality, and the oficial name is 100% Tirgu and NOT Targu.

Thank you!