Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Earlier dicussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5
• /Archive 6
• /Archive 7
• /Archive 8
• /Archive 9

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)

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.wikipedia.org/ -- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)