Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Archives
2002 July 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Contents 1 Naming question 2 Capitalization exception 3 Macedonia naming Request for Comments 4 A proposal 5 Music: technical terms

[edit] Naming question

The country music trio Schuyler, Knobloch & Overstreet began its life as Schuyler, Knobloch and Overstreet. Its debut album was released under that name, but two of the three singles (including a #1) were credited to just S-K-O. The second album was released as S-K-B (…and Bickhardtt) before they disbanded. Since all three names were used for a roughly equal period of time, which name should the article take? S-K-B since it was the most recent name used, or S-K-O since it was the name they had greatest success under? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the name with which they had the most success, unless there is reason to believe some other name is more commonly used to refer to them. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The last name tends to be what is used in other cases, like for a radio call sign in an article. A more interesting question might be are both bands notable and are they different enough to merit separate articles? WP:MUSIC does not appear to address this point, but maybe asking there might get a better answer. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They were only around for two years. Three singles were credited to S-K-O and three to S-K-B. Given that they're effectively the same band and weren't around for very long in any incarnation, it should probably be just one article. I'm tempted to say S-K-O, myself, since their biggest hit was as S-K-O. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then go with S-K-O, if that's what they were known as for their biggest hit, unless S-K-B is more common in reliable sources. So, check Google New, Books, etc.--Aervanath (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization exception

I've toned this down somewhat. I think it was the original intention that fancy caps may be used to disambiguate, but don't have to be:

except where non-standard capitalization is selected as one of the many possible methods of disambiguation.

but if may be clearer now.

I'm not sure this is a good idea; on the one hand, if there were another Invader Zim, it might be simpler to use Invader ZIM than Invader Zim (video game). On the other hand, the reason we don't encourage funky caps is that they are often surprising and inconvenient to readers. It may be better to remove this and leave the question to IAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering that WP:MOS-TM leans against using non-standard caps.--Aervanath (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia naming Request for Comments

A Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

I'd like to know the regulars' opinions of changing Wikipedia policy pages from (disambiguation) format to /subpage format. Please read and respond here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For those who read this too quickly (as I did), this proposal doesn't relate to articles, only pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. So all the separate naming conventions would become subpages of WP:Naming conventions, etc.--Aervanath (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many proposals are felled through hasty phrasing... Thanks again! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was hasty phrasing on your part: you clearly stated "Wikipedia policy pages". The hastiness was in my reading of it, and THAT's what fells a lot of proposals: people reading too quickly, missing a crucial detail, and participating in the discussion from a position of ignorance.--Aervanath (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I almost always participate from a position of ignorance, I should assume the same of other people. There's already been one comment under your same assumption. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Music: technical terms

The currently guidelines for music only give suggestions for works and band names. However, I believe it would be helpful to many editors to have some advice on "technical" terms.

For example, a merge of acoustic scale and lydian dominant scale has been proposed (since they are the same pitches, but conceptualized and used differently) but no article title has been suggested. The current Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Music give no suggestion as to whether they should be kept separate articles or merged, and if merged, where to. Hyacinth (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Then that means that it's up to the editors of those pages to agree on what the best page name should be. After that discussion, you could generalize the results of that specific consensus to other articles, and add it into the guideline. If someone else disagrees, then you can discuss it at the convention's talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)