Wikipedia talk:Article titles

"Rock 'n' Roll Train" or "Rock N Roll Train"

AC/DC's new single "Rock 'n' Roll Train" (short discussion at talk page), should it be titled as the CD cover says ("Rock N Roll Train"), the vinyl cover says ("Rock N' Roll Train") or how i would write it with the apostrphes representing the two missing letters, this is what seems most correct to me. I suppose this issue is also connected to Rock 'n' Roll and Guns N' Roses, i am beginning to assume the title should be written as trademarked, because changing where the apostrophes are is changing the trademark? So, i am not sure, please review the issue, thanks! k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the article's title should reflect how it is shown on album credits (for example Hot N Cold - no apostrophes), although on the song's Talk Page I added links to images of the vinyl album and CD cover scans - one has an apostrophe and no space (Rock N'Roll) and the other has none (Rock N Roll). - eo (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay since this place has been absolutely no help, where should i go to get a reply? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 08:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Anyway, my opinion: It's not the job of Wikipedia to interpret song titles in any way, but to documentate them. --80.130.136.81 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)

Not sure if this is directly related to the examples given above, but why does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) appear to get a blanket exemption from using common names? Recently many articles have been moved from the common name to the scientific name. Just a few examples: Joshua tree to Yucca brevifolia; White oak to Quercus alba; Bur oak to Quercus macrocarpa. It is understandable that the scientific name might be preferred in cases where there is no single well-known common name or where the common name is ambiguous. But it just seems wrong to systematically prefer the scientific name, even in cases where there is a well-established, unambiguous common name. older ≠ wiser 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Check out Poison oak for an example of that. WP:UCN is completely ignored. Another fairly recent example of WP:UCN being ignored is the failed move proposal of Public house → Pub at Talk:Public house. Turns out that "pub" is an abbreviation of "public house", and that's good material for the article, but clearly the most common term is "pub" (and Pub redirects to Public house), and so, per WP:UCN, that should be the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with older≠wiser, and suggested on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) to that the two first paragraphs from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(astronomical_objects)#General_guidelines or something similar should be included in the flora guideline, but some of the editors are resisting a {{disputedtag}} on the guideline, "your presonal objection is not worthy of a dispute tag being added to a policy page that was adopted by the community, and which clearly has strong support.", while we talk about changes to the page (let alone any other changes to the page). I would appreciate it if some others would explain the the guideline must be in compliance with the Naming Convention policy, or else it leads to needless disharmony over article naming. --PBS (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue should be raised at the Village pump/policy. I started a discussion over there, at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Tree update

The proposal to move the article at Yucca brevifolia back to Joshua Tree was rejected due to supposed lack of consensus, despite voting to be 2:1 in favor of the restoration, and the fact that it was moved unilaterally from Joshua Tree without any discussion much less establishment of consensus only last month.

This is another victim of the belief that specific conventions should trump general guidelines (rather than specific conventions should complement, and not contradict, general guidelines). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Hesperian 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update

If someone can fix the broken link to the list of conjunctions, then I won't have to report a broken link in the monthly WP:Update. This was kind of complicated; there was an older list of conjunctions that got deleted, then the link got redirected somehow to FANBOYS, then that link was changed on Nov 7 ... still, I'd prefer not to have to report on broken links in a content policy, it doesn't look right. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Common subset names

I'm having repeated battles over some articles where the common use of a term is a subset of the general meaning. The argument I make (always successfully so far) is that the wikipedia is a general work, and therefore needs to cover all examples of a term, not just the most common usage.

For example:

• internal combustion engine

normally taken to mean 'piston engine' but also covers Wankel engine

the general definition includes gas turbines, jet engines, ramjets and rockets

we ended up using the general definition

• jet engine

normally taken to mean turbojet or turbofan

general definition includes anything emitting a jet to move, ramjet jet boat rocket engine

we ended up using the general definition

• steam engine

normally taken to mean a piston engine powered by steam

but lots of steam ships and power generation uses steam powered gas turbines

we ended up using the general definition

Current discussion:

• glider

normally taken to mean sailplane

general definition includes anything gliding, but a glider is normally something intended to glide including the Space Shuttle

discussion is ongoing...

I personally think in situations like this we have little choice but to use the general definition; and I loathe having to battle it out each time, I get personally attacked and it causes all manner of ill-will all round.

Is it agreed that it is desirable to preferentially use the general definition wherever at all reasonable? If so I'll add it as policy. Can anyone think of a clear counter-example?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the general definition should be used when possible. As another example, consider Hollywood (which is currently unfortunately a redirect to the unnecessarily precise Hollywood, Los Angeles, California; see Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles, California for a discussion about fixing this) in which the district of L.A. as well as its closely related use as metonym is covered. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that it would apply in situations where they're not a strict subset/superset; I think in the example you give Hollywood the place and Hollywood the industry aren't subsets, one's geographical and the other is business related. I would probably lean to Hollywood being the studio system on popularity grounds though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How would you propose we should modify WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should simply clarify that the bit that says "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" means that where a general sense is reasonably well known that it should be used in preference to any subset/restricted sense, even if that restricted sense may be somewhat more common, otherwise we'd just be encouraging ambiguity.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case of glider for example, if you ask almost anyone whether a paper aeroplane is a glider, they will say yes, but it is a glider in the general sense, not the restricted sense of sailplane, so the generality rule would make glider be the general concept rather than sailplane concept.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't apply if it was truly an obscure usage though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of racial or ethnic prefix to nationality of subject biography: African-American, etc. vs American

The use of race and ethnicity prefix descriptors seems arbitrary. If the intent is to give nationality, then racial or ethnic prefix is inappropriate. For example, below is an extract from 1940, Births:

snip: October 23 - Pelé, Brazilian footballer
October 25 - Bobby Knight, American basketball coach
October 27 - John Gotti, American gangster (d. 2002)
November 1 - Ramesh Chandra Lahoti, Chief Justice of India
November 12 - Glenn Stetson, Canadian singer ("The Diamonds")
November 15 - Sam Waterston, American actor (Law and Order)
November 15 - Roberto Cavalli, Italian designer
November 17 - Luke Kelly, Irish ballad singer (The Dubliners)
November 21 - Richard Marcinko, U.S. Navy SEAL team member and author
November 25 - Joe Gibbs, American football coach
November 27 - Bruce Lee, Chinese-American martial artist and actor (The Green Hornet) (d. 1973)
November 29 - Chuck Mangione, famous American flugelhorn player
December 1 - Richard Pryor, African-American actor and comedian (d. 2005)
end snip:

Pele not listed as African-Brazilian
Knight not listed as White-American
Gotti not listed as Italian-American
Stetson not listed as Scottish-Canadian or Ulster-Scottish-Canadian

On the other hand:
Lee listed as Chinese-American (he was born in the San Francisco.)
Mangione listed as "famous" as opposed to the many obscure American flugelhorn players catalogued in Wikipedia?
Pryor listed as African-American.

Is there any policy that can explain the various distinctions? I suggest all non-nationality qualifiers be saved for the subjects biography page.

Ebesch1 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Another aspect of this is categorization. WP:CATEGORY says that we should only use categories to reflect what is in the text. So if a subject is not identified in the text as an "African American", then we should not categorize him or her that way. So, if not in the lead then where? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary precision: Bounty

There is a proposal getting a lot of support to move Bounty (ship) to a name with considerably more (unnecessary) precision here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bounty_(ship)#Requested_move

--Born2cycle (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to common names statement

Common names currently states:

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

The first clause, "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication", unnecessarily leaves the names of myriads of articles open to endless debate. The root issue is whether specialized conventions should complement or contradict the more general conventions like "use the most common name". After being involved in countless discussions about article names, I'm convinced that if specialized conventions complemented, and did not contradict, the more general conventions, we would have much more clarity on how articles should be named. A good first step in moving towards that direction would be to remove that first clause to create:

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

By the way, this clause was added with no discussion, so far as I can tell, about two years ago in this change. Prior to that it simply said: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.".

If no one objects (if you do, please explain why), I will edit the page accordingly. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) would have to be updated accordingly, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the sentiment that specific naming conventions ought not contradict these general ones. But rather than simply removing the sentence, it may be better to recast it into a statement to the effect that specific conventions give guidance on how these general conventions are best applied within a particular field or domain.

A related issue is that there seems to be a tendency to put "use the most common name" alone on a pedestal, whereas it is really one of many priorities, some others being accuracy, non-ambiguity, neutrality, and consistency. I would like the first clause to be more explicit in recognising that there are multiple priorities.

Hesperian 03:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that specific naming conventions ought not contradict these general ones.

With respect to accuracy, WP:PRECISION specifically calls for more accuracy only when necessary; I know of no justification for veering from the most common name in the name of more accuracy. Non-ambiguity is a well understood problem and is addressed by WP:D and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Neutrality is addressed in the current and proposed wording. I don't know of any general guidelines that call for consistency explicitly, especially for consistency in naming within a given field or domain. In fact, the underlying problem I'm trying to address here is the contradictory notion that consistency of naming within a field trumps using the most common name for some given article.

Anyway, how about this:

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing when it does not conflict with the names of other people or things; when there is a conflict, use the naming conflict guideline to resolve it, which includes referring to more specific guidelines for disambiguation guidance. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No; that wording constrains specific guidelines to offering guidance on disambiguation alone. In addition to providing domain-specific guidance on disambiguation strategies, specific conventions may provide guidance on other aspects of the naming conventions, such as domain-specific strategies for achieving sufficient precision; domain knowledge on the relative common-ness of names; or advice on avoiding certain domain-specific terminology that betrays a subtle POV.

For example, the WikiProject Birds naming convention should have every right to say "because of the widespread adoption of standardised common names, the standard common name of a bird is invariably the name in most common use. Therefore, the standard common name should be used as the title for all bird articles."

Hesperian 06:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that wording constrains specific guidelines to offering guidance on disambiguation alone. If the general guidelines indicate a name without disambiguation issues, what role can the more specific guidelines possibly have except to contradict the outcome of the general guidelines?

such as domain-specific strategies for achieving sufficient precision - if the name indicated by the general guidelines requires no disambiguation, how is it possible that the precision achieved is insufficient? Why would more precision be necessary?

domain knowledge on the relative common-ness of names I don't understand how determining common-ness of usage of names might vary from domain to domain. The topic of determining common-ness is covered at length at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), including the section Do not overdo it which covers the issues of avoiding most common names that are misleading (like Tidal wave).

advice on avoiding certain domain-specific terminology that betrays a subtle POV - I'm inclined to give you this one, except what it ultimately means is that the most common name used to refer to a particular topic might not be used because it "betrays a subtle POV". That has got to be a very rare exception. I certainly can't think of any examples. Can you? Anyway, I'm willing to flesh out the last sentence to indicate this utility of the more specific guidelines.

Ultimately, leaving the impression that specific guidelines can override the general conventions is opening the Pandora's box I think we should be trying to close. Limiting the scope of specific guidelines to only those situations in which disambiguation is required is probably the only way to close it, and keep it closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about applicability

Born2cycle has implied here (and I admit that I might have misconstrued) that the statement "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject," is not as important as the statement "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number 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." I'd like some clarification from other editors; is the use of reliable sources in determining the common name not as important as a "Google test"?--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement on reliable sources is a (relatively recent) guide to how to execute the statement on most easily recognize, which is - and always has been - the purpose of this convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Because two editors interpret the statement about reliable sources to be a "guide" (despite it being part of a policy), and because Wikipedia:Reliable sources is itself a guideline and not a policy, it is permissible to simply attest that a name is the commonest? I'd be interested in a third opinion from an editor not involved in the discussion about the flora guidelines.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, as I explained at the flora talk page, I did not say nor mean to imply that one statement is more important than the other, though I'm curious what I wrote that caused you to think I did.

Anyway, I think that the only reasonable way to interpret the two statements is such that they are complementary rather than contradictory. Therefore, the way one determines "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" is by "seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". In other words, what determines "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" is "what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". The assumption is that English speakers are influenced by these sources.

I too would like to know what others think. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" is unknowable and unmeasurable—an unattainable ideal. One can imagine a great many metrics by which to approximate the answer, and we could argue until the cows come home over which metric is best. Fortunately this policy tells us which metric to use: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Hesperian 10:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction between whatBorn2cycle and Hesperian have written here. Reliable sources is not defined in this policy it is defined in the WP:V policy by linking verifiable reliable sources to WP:SOURCES, it is not linked to the guideline WP:RS. This was a useful explicit addition to the naming conventions policy because when the original Naming Convention was written WP:V did not exist, but it is a principle of Wikipedia that policies must not be read in isolation and so it would be very silly if this policy, using unreliable sources (eg internet forum) was in conflict with the content policies so that the name of the article was not used in the text of an article. All that was done with the additional sentence was to make explicit what implied by taking the content policies and the naming conventions policy as a whole. Making it explicit (including the use of English sources) solved lots of problems with blog sites in foreign languages being used to justify page names. --PBS (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the requirement that sources be in English. There are some things in this world that are not well known (perhaps not known at all) by English speakers; what then? --Una Smith (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are no English language sources at all then presumably most English speaking people will not have heard of it. A question of notability comes into it, but see WP:NONENG and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No_established usage. An example that came up last year was a battle for which the editors had not found an English source and the translated name was different between Polish and Lithuanian! The best we can do in such cases is either agree on the talk page of the article to use a descriptive name, or fall back on "the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." --PBS (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Units of measure

It would be good to have a formal guideline for the disambiguating phrase to use with units of measure. Currently, most such articles are disambiguated as "(unit)", but a number use "(quantity)" (where quantity = "mass", "length", etc.), a few use "(unit of quantity)", and a couple use something else entirely. For some of the more obscure units, it probably doesn't matter much, but for key SI units, such as pascal or newton with hundreds of incoming links, it seems fairly important to have a stable and predictable naming system, backed by a reasonable consensus. So let's hear some opinions. For consistency, if possible, please label your !vote as unit, quantity, unit of quantity, no convention (i.e., a formal naming guideline would not be desirable), or other (explain). For the purpose of this discussion, let's ignore units and pseudo-units perhaps better disambiguated as (domain), e.g., cent (music) or pinch (cooking), and stick to measurements of physical quantities.

Survey

• Unit. It's short to type, easy to remember, and avoids potential disagreements on what exactly to call the quantity. For example, though stone is nominally a unit of "(mass)", it's virtually always used in the sense of a "(weight)". Is knot a unit of "(velocity)" (per Category:Units of velocity) or "(speed)" (per its most common use)? Other quantities have long or awkward names: do we want henry (unit), henry (electrical inductance) (per Category:Units of electrical inductance), or henry (inductance)? Should it be gauss (unit) or gauss (magnetic flux density)? While there is something to be said for having the disambiguator indicate what kind of quantify is being measured, the vast majority of units do not have a disambiguator at all, so the phrase should just suffice to distinguish the unit from other meanings of the term. In the (very rare) case of ambiguous unit names that cannot be otherwise resolved (e.g., pound (force) currently redirects to the arguably more accurate pound-force), I'm fine with either "(quantity unit)" or "(unit of quantity)" as the disambiguator. Hqb (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Unit with any necessary further disambig being "Unit of X" (eg "Minute (unit of time)" and "Minute (unit of angular size)"). "Unit" is the most generic term and requires no pre-existing knowledge of what the term actually measures. This doesn't mean redirects can't be added (they are cheap). --MASEM 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Unit. I think it's a sufficiently unambiguous shorthand for unit of measure. If there is more than one unit possible, it could be further disambiguated, as in "pound (unit of mass)" versus "pound (unit of force)".RockyMtnGuy (talk)
• Unit. Of great value for hassle-free linking, and I don't see a downside. what Gene says below makes sense. But it would seem important to fix all the redirects.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Unit. As far as I know, this must be a rather consistent convention here since that is what I would have typed to find it. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Leave as is. Much of this has already been done—and we aren't likely to be inventing a whole bunch of new units of measure deserving a Wikipedia article which do not already have one. Most of the rest of what the original poster raised (e.g., "it seems fairly important to have a stable and predictable naming") is easily handled by redirects; make sure that the appropriate ones exist. Foot (unit) works just fine, for example.
• The fact that newton (unit) doesn't link to the proper article is just due to idiots moving articles around haphazardly and not fixing the redirects properly. You are just leaving the door open for more idiocy along the same lines if you try to make wholesale changes in what exists now. Fix that one on an individual case basis by moving from the verbose disambiguation now used to newton (unit) and check any other redirects to the mess someone has created, otherwise leave well enough alone. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• And look here for an example of what some well-intentioned editor did when trying to fix the problems of improperly linking newton (unit) to a disambiguation page, using the edit summary "(WikiCleaner 0.85 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!)". Needless to say, the disambiguation was botched. But there was absolutely no reason to lay this trap in front of any editor in the first place. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not necessarily arguing for actively moving all existing disambiguators to a uniform scheme; but I think a standard naming convention is still needed, precisely to discourage random moves like the recent newton (unit) → newton (unit of force) (which should probably be undone before it gets too entrenched). Also, while we should not expect many articles on brand new units, several of the currently undisambiguated names might still be turned into dab pages or redirects to the unit's namesake, as has in fact happened to both Newton and Pascal. While the merits of any such move should of course be discussed individually, a general guideline would at least make sure that if, say, becquerel were to be moved, it would be to becquerel (unit) rather than to becquerel (radioactivity), becquerel (unit of radioactivity), becquerel (decay rate), or whatever. Anyone moving a page and repurposing its original name is of course responsible for fixing all incoming links (which, indeed, far too many editors don't realize); but that's no different for measurement units than for any other naming convention, so I don't see why it should discourage us from having a guideline at all. Hqb (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have the facts wrong. The move wasn't from newton (unit); that was a long-standing redirect, which did link to the right article. Then it was changed to link improperly to the newton (disambiguation) when the article to which the "(unit)" redirect used to point was needlessly moved, rather than to the new name of the article to which it used to redirect. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And it wasn't that it Newton was a "currently undisambiguated name" before the recent move; in fact, the Newton (disambiguation) is an page has been there since Time Immemorial (back 7½ years ago, when Wikipedia was a crude infant). It was simply a matter of having the primary disambiguation going to the one thing most likely to be intended if newton standing alone were linked. If the link were intended for a person, for example, it should normally include that person's given name. Likewise, we do already have becquerel (disambiguation) as well—and that page is linked to in a disambiguation hatline in the article which holds the primary disambiguation slot for this name.

Like I said above, the fact that becquerel (unit) is a redlink as I write this should be fixed by creating the appropriate redirect to becquerel. I'll do it tomorrow, if no one has beaten me to it; I'll leave it red a little while here for clarity. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Now I've looked into it a little bit more, and I'm just downright pissed off at the lunacy of the people who moved Newton to Newton (unit of force). We should not do anything which would encourage more of this nonsense.

1. The double redirects haven't even been fixed. That is something you are reminded to do every time you make an article move. So now if you click on a link to meganewtons, you get stuck on a page where you need to click on another link to get to an actual article.
   1. And when you do click on that link, you don't get taken to the page you want, but rather to a disambiguation page where you need to do your own hunting around to find the link you are really looking for.
2. The move has improperly left hundreds of unfixed links to a disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I undid the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then, is your leave as is really the same as the current no convention, i.e., editors should continue to use whatever they feel like for the disambiguating phrase in unit names? The reason being, if there is any designated such phrase (like "(film)" or "(band)" in other areas), people will just improperly move pages to conform to it, without fixing incoming links? If so, is the implication that naming conventions in general are a bad thing, or that unit names are somehow particularly vulnerable to this problem? Nobody is arguing that existing pages with a primary (or sole) meaning as a unit name should be moved to "(unit)"; I just want to make sure that, given the expressed preferences above, the article about newtons ends up at either newton or newton (unit), rather than at newton (unit of force) or newton (force), and likewise for becquerel, etc. Hqb (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't particularly vulnerable to the problem.

Or rather, the vulnerability has been pretty much dealt with. Much of this has already been done. There was a lengthy discussion of it somewhere. I think it was most likely on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Somebody with more ambition than I have should go wade through the old archives there and try to find it.

But things like ton (unit) should never be anything other than a disambiguation page--which is essentially what ton is, disambiguating a ton of different units with that name, with further disambiguation in the non–units of measure sense at ton (disambiguation).

Same for pound (unit), a link which redirects to the general disambiguation page for pound; that's why one (well, actually several different units of mass, including avoirdupois pound, troy pound, tower pound, and a number of others) are at pound (mass), the unit of force is at pound-force (disambiguated that way because it should generally be visibly disambiguated in the articles as well).

This isn't a one-size fits all issue. Somebody really should go try to dig up the old, lengthy discussion when many of these were changed. One clue as to the time of this discussion is that one of the moves involved then was to change foot (unit of length) to foot (length), if my memory serves me right. That took place on 24 October 2007. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 89#Article titles for units, which unfortunately looks like it ended without any definite conclusions. But the examples given by User:Lightmouse reiterate that it's much more of a zoo out there than it needs to be. The problem is actually not so much with terms that (among possible other meanings) have a single, well-defined sense as a unit, such as pascal or newton: it seems that those articles should naturally reside either at "unitname" or "unitname (unit)" (unless someone still wants to champion "unitname (quantity)" as the general convention in such cases), though possibly with "unitname (quantity)" as a redirect in cases where it seems useful: inch (length) → inch is probably a good idea; Tesla (magnetic flux density) → Tesla (unit) might not be. The real question is then what to do about the truly problematical cases where "unitname (unit)" is itself ambiguous or inappropriate for some reason. I'm starting a list of such hard cases below, to make sure that any emerging policy can take them into account. Hqb (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a guideline: For every unit of measure, there should exist a page Unitname (unit), either as a redirect or as the article name. Articles should never be moved to accommodate this; redirects should be created instead. New articles about units should be given the form Unitname if the name is unambiguous; otherwise, Unitname (unit) should be used, unless there is compelling reason for a different name. If a new article is given a name other than Unitname (unit), the redirect should be created at the same time.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, except that new articles should only be named Unitname (unit) if disambiguation is necessary for Unitname. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the wording above, to make the diff available.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you don't literally mean "never move [say] Hasta (measure) to Hasta (unit)"; how is that different from moving any other non-standardly named article, like Transformers (movie) to Transformers (film), to follow the disambiguation guidelines in that domain? Simple moves are not the problem; but what should never happen is that the redirect created by such a move then gets overwritten by a dab page, or a (redirect to a) different article, breaking incoming links in the process. Of course, the best way of preventing that is to actually update all incoming links at the time of the move, which is fortunately trivial for most obscure or newly created articles. We could perhaps make it a formal requirement when moving any unit page, if there's a good case to be made that link-breaking is more of a problem for units than for other kinds of articles. Hqb (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Gene (above) may have a different view. I'm good with either way.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Unitname (unit), how about: if there is a Unitname (disambiguation) (or an equivalent hatnote at Unitname) , then there should also be a Unitname (unit) (either as the actual article name, or as a redirect). Otherwise, we would seem to require creating dubious extra redirects like Hvat (unit) → Hvat or hectometre (unit) → Hectometre, that are extremely unlikely to ever be used. Hqb (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the disambiguation pages fit into this, but as for your last statement, redirects are cheap, and if every unit has a Unitname (unit) form, every link to Unitname (unit) will succeed. And whereas Hvat and Hectometre don't need disambiguation, Newton should arguably be a disambiguation page rather than the unit (I'd argue for leaving it where it is, but I'm a scientist; a historian might suggest that it go to the person, just as Pascal does).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying that if the term Unitname has any other meaning than as the unit (whether or not that's the primary meaning), there should be a Unitname (unit), but for terms whose sole meaning is a unit, there's no reason to preemptively create additional redirects, just like we don't automatically create Filmname (film) for every single film, or Bandname (band) for every single band. I have yet to hear a reasoned argument for why articles about units of measurement in particular should be treated any differently with respect to moving or preemptive disambiguation – all I wanted to resolve in this poll was whether the standard disambiguation phrase should be "(unit)", "(quantity)", "(unit of quantity)", or nothing in particular. Hqb (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of ambiguous unit names

This is a list of unit names for which a title of the form "unitname (unit)" might be problematic. The intent is to develop a sensible naming convention covering at least some of these cases, if possible (or to conclude, on a factual basis, that the situation is truly hopeless).

Currently very incomplete; feel free to expand.

• ton (long, short, or metric)
• pound (mass, force, or currency)
• second, minute (time or angle)
• gallon, pint, quart (US or imperial volume)
• mile (statue or nautical)
• cup (imperial, metric, or Japanese)

Note that having two or more units sharing a name is in principle no different from other dab situations. In particular, if one sense is much more common or important than the other, the primary meaning can still sensibly reside at "unitname (unit)", and the other(s) at "unitname (clarifier unit)" with a hatnote, as in Stone (unit) vs. Stone (Chinese unit). Some of the examples in the list above might fall into this category. Hqb (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Add:

• Mcf (1000 cubic feet, or 1,000,000 cubic feet, depending on whether "M" stands for Latin mille or Greek mega)
• ounce (mass, force, or fluid ounce, US or imperial, avoirdupois or troy)
• barrel (US oil, US beer, US dry, imperial)
• ton (register ton, displacement ton, freight ton, refrigeration ton, nuclear explosion ton)
• calorie (gram calorie, kilogram calorie)
• dram (avoirdupois, apothecary, or fluid dram)
• cable (US mariner, British Admiralty, or metric)
• hundredweight (long or short)
• inch (length, in HG, in WC)
• tablespoon (US, imperial, Commonwealth metric, Australian)
• teaspoon (US, imperial, Commonwealth metric)
• yard (length, cloth area, cubic)

RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Even RockyMtnGuy's additions for tons have only scratched the surface. The short, long, and metric tons have all spun off force units in addition to the standard mass units; "refrigeration tons" might be either units of energy or units of power; other energy units include various tons of oil equivalent, tons of coal equivalent, etc. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in titles such as kilometre, milliampere, etc.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Article titles about multiples and submultiples of units. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on voting as a component of consensus

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple question

Simple question which honestly most of you probably don't care about the subject for (professional wrestling), but i'm asking anyway to end a conflict: should articles be named by their given name or by a wikiprojects manual of style? Wrestling promotion Ring of Honor held a pay-per-view event which they titled "Rising Above 2008" but shortened on promotional posters to simply "Rising Above", which is also the same named use for another pay-per-view they taped in 2007. Rising Above 2008 was filmed in November 2008 and is airing in January 2009. The official name for the event as given by Ring of Honor is "Rising Above 2008", however it is WikiProject Professional wrestling's policy not to go by what they titled it. Instead, it has been changed to Rising Above (2009) because it is being aired in 2009. So my question is should the article be title by what the promotion who held the event named it (Rising Above 2008) or by what the wikiproject says it should be named ("Rising Above (2009)")? Nenog (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wine and viticulture

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Glossary of wine terms

I may have jumped the gun by inserting a section and guideline sentence at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Wine and viticulture, not realizing this might be the place to propose such things first. The line refers to what has long been (mostly) the practice at WP:WINE, but would be nice to have in writing, and better avoid new anomalies. Are there other important issues we should consider? MURGH ^disc. 00:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to place it in a new section called Proposed conventions, so that we can see if there is a consensus for it, it can be move up once there is.

How does this convention fit in with "WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name" and the general "WP:NC#General conventions"? It would seem to me to fall foul of WP:PRECISION (see also WP:DAB.--PBS (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to a few of us preoccupied with the topic of wine, to fit nicely with WP:COMMONNAME. As for as the WP:PRECISION guideline, we opt for the "not overly precise" bit, as we were getting a host of variants on the same theme. But yes, there are surely many cases more where (wine) is the less appropriate DAB choice, other than just the two exceptions mentioned, and we'd like to define more of those. But at least as far as a unifier of (wine writer), (wine critic), (wine authority), (wine columnist), (wine correspondent) it seems functional. MURGH ^disc. 11:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Template naming conventions

I've suggested standardizing template naming, at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Template naming conventions. If you're frustrated with typing template names and constantly guessing at the right capitalization and spacing, please chime in. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 17:48 z

Reverting changes

Just as a general rule (because this annoys me every time it happens), there doesn't have to be a talk page discussion before every change of wording, as implied in Philip's edit summary, particularly if it's a stylistic change only. So while you are perfectly entitled to revert, I think it would be more helpful for discussion if you gave your actual reason for reverting (i.e. why you think the edit was unhelpful), because the statement that there has to be discussion beforehand is just incorrect. It quite often turns out in practice (on policy pages in particular) that people have just reverted blindly because they wrongly think everything needs to be pre-discussed, and this disrupts the BRD process since we can't distinguish between cases where there is real opposition necessitating discussion, and where there is only misguided bureaucracy at work. </rant>

All the changes I just made were only intended to make the meaning clearer - if people don't think I've succeeded, or if they think the meaning's been inadvertently changed, then that's fine, revert them, but please say what the objection actually is.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree "lack of discussion" or "insufficient discussion" alone does not justify a revert. A specific objection to the change being reverted should also be provided, either in the edit summary or in the talk page with a note about that in the edit summary. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixed and non-capitalization in personal names

A request for comment has been opened at the talk page of WP:MOSCL, on how the Manual of Style should handle mixed and non-capitalization in personal names. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Steinerner Steg

An interesting discussion on which name should be used for the disputed region between Austria and Italy deserves a wider and more knowledgeable eye than I can give it. Please take a look. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, John: there have been tons of discussion about this issue and a consensus as been reached about the naming of the region: Talk:Communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen, Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Archive 3: the political entity is named Province of Bolzano-Bozen and for the history section History of Alto Adige-South Tyrol is used: Alto Adige a being a creation of Napoleonic times (and reintroduced after World War I) and the literal translation of Südtirol= South Tyrol. With the important distinction that this term Alto Adige-South Tyrol iy only being used from 1919 onwards.

The problem here is that the IP 192.45.72.26 is editing with an agenda: if you look at his other edits you will see that said IP it is trying to remove all mention of South Tyrol from articles example (which he can do, as the name we have settled on the name of Province of Bolzano-Bozen) but he is also trying to purge the term South Tyroleans from articles and replaces it with German speakers of Bolzano-Bozen [1] - short he has a agenda and he is aggressive and insulting in his behaviour, he also likes to remove warnings from his talkpage and edits other users pages in his crusade to remove the term South Tyrol. In short: this is one of the many instances, when someone with an agenda tries to impose his nationalist view on articles related to South Tyrol (and it is so much worse at the German and Italian wiki...) --noclador (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal (was merge proposal)

For a proposal to rename Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) to something outside "naming conventions space" (it was previously proposed to merge it with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)), please see and comment here.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't WP:NC in conflict with WP:NOR?

At WT:NC (flora) it was just brought to my attention that at the top of WP:NC it states:

Naming conventions are Wikipedia's policy on how to name pages. The conventions are supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy. This policy should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies and not in isolation. In particular editors should familiarise themselves with the three core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

This implies that we must adhere to Wikipedia:No original research when naming articles. I don't see how that is even possible.

Do we not necessarily violate WP:NOR every time we name or rename an article based on our own research (including using WP:GOOGLE) because rarely (if ever) is there a reliable source that clearly shows that a given name is "the most commonly used name" for a given topic, or is "the most easily recognized name"? Are we not violating WP:NOR every time we find a new creative way to disambiguate a title so that it won't conflict with other uses? By its very nature, isn't the process of determining "the most commonly used name" and "the most easily recognized name", not to mention the whole process of disambiguation, a process of original research? Isn't WP:NOR really meant to apply to article content, and not to article naming?

Can we strike the reference of WP:NOR at the top of WP:NC, and, better yet, even explicitly state that WP:NOR necessarily does not apply, and cannot apply, to the process of determining article titles in accordance with WP:NC? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. Article titles need to reflect core Wikipedia policies, and need to be verifiable by reliable sources - as opposed to just made up. First Light (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose NOR still has a role to play in naming; after all, we don't make up completely original names. I think it would make things clearer if WP:OR were amended to make it clear what sort of things are not regarded as forbidden original research - but last time I looked at that page there was a core of hardliners opposed to including anything which might be interpreted as "weakening" that policy, regardless of what actual practice is.--Kotniski (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, interesting, and good point. I would hope that limiting the exception to the process of article naming would alleviate their concerns. I've posted a note about this at WT:NOR as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But First Light, WP editors make up titles all the time, and we must. I just hit SPECIAL:RANDOM and got, Historical U.S. Census Totals for New London County, Connecticut. Where is the reliable source that verifies that name at all for that topic? Hitting random again... how about for Black Creek (Florida)? Is there a reliable source with which we can verify that Black Creek (Florida) is even a commonly used name for that topic, much less the most commonly used name? Tama, Podlaskie Voivodeship? Tughlaq Road? Maybe we can find reliable sources that indicate that some of these are valid names for their respective topics, but where do you find a reliable source that clearly shows that each name is "the most commonly used" for that topic, or is the one that is "the most easily recognized name"? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are reliable sources for plant names, and those sources almost always show the scientific name, which is why the naming policy (flora) works quite well. First Light (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First, my concern is about the reference to, and implication of, WP:NOR in WP:NC in general, not necessarily just with respect to plant names, even though this issue was brought to my attention at WT:NC (flora). Is your objection ("Bad idea") to my point in general, or only how it applies to plants?

But, yes, flora are reliable sources for plant names, but they are not necessarily reliable sources for determining what WP naming policy requires: "the most easily recognized name" and the name that the "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". That can only be determined on a case-by-case basis (and by engaging in what might be considered to be "original research"), just like for any WP article, and may or may not coincide with the Latin name specified as the scientific name by the reliable scientific sources. For relatively well-known plants, the most easily recognized name is unlikely to be the scientific Latin name, except in rare cases such as Aloe vera. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WRT Black Creek (Florida), yes. GNIS is pretty much definitive for most US geographic names. Since Black Creek is ambiguous, appending "(Florida)" is an arbitrary convention for disambiguating the title and is not part of the name for the stream. As for Historical U.S. Census Totals for New London County, Connecticut, there is likely to not be any reliable source with a common name for that precise set of data. So long as such descriptive titles are accurate and NPOV, there is no reason to consider the name under OR. older ≠ wiser 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GNIS might very well be "pretty much definitive" for stating what the geographic names are officially, but does it explicitly tell us what name is most commonly used to refer to those places, or what name would be most easily recognized? We surmise that they are one and the same, and that's arguably OR. Now, in such a trivial case it seems a petty point, and, well, it is, but it actually illustrates my point: even in the most obvious cases what the reliable sources specify is not what WP:NC requires us to determine. When you have a topic with multiple names, I don't know of a single case in which a verifiable source specifies which is the most common, or which is most likely to be easily recognized. So that determination is almost always, if not always, arguably OR. Same with determining whether a given name has a primary topic. The concept of "primary topic", is, so far as I know, unique to WP, and so the process of determining whether there is a primary topic for a given name, and what it is, is inherently OR. Even the process of disambiguation, by adding dab info in parenthesis to a title, is arguably a creative process, and thus OR too.

I'm not saying any of this is a problem - it has to be that way. Of course. But it is OR, and WP:NC should explicitly acknowledge it and state that it is kosher, so that when an objection is raised based on an argument that following WP:NC to determine an article's name is a violation of WP:NOR, something could be cited to definitely make clear that WP:NOR does not apply when determining which among several candidates is the most commonly used name, which topic, if any, is primary for a given name, how best to disambiguate a name that has multiple conflicting uses, etc. I think WP:NOR should state something to that effect too. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re GNIS: in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is purely conjecture as to whether some other name is more commonly used. And in the absence of such evidence, it would be OR to assume that any other name is more commonly used. older ≠ wiser 01:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not just OR, that's just making stuff up out of whole cloth. Obviously, the determination of what is the most commonly used name, or what is the name most easily recognized, needs to be based on evidence. But that determination is still OR. To put my point in your terms, in the absence of any reliable source that clearly states that the name specified by the GNIS is also the most commonly used name for that place, and the name most likely to be recognized, it is (arguably) OR to assume never-the-less that it is the most commonly used name for that place, and that it is the name most likely to be recognized. Again, I'm not saying that is anything wrong with doing that, just that it is OR, and the WP:NC and WP:NOR should be clear about that being okay. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. It is an assumption that GNIS is a reliable authority for place names in the US. Choosing a different title that is at odds with a reliable authority would require a significant burden of proof. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept that GNIS is a reliable authority for place names in the US. That alone doesn't necessarily make the GNIS a reliable authority for most commonly used names. Jumping to that conclusion is arguably OR, though it happens to be a reasonable thing to do in the case of place names because place names tend to have only one name, and, even if they have multiple names, the most common one is almost certain to be coincident with one specified by the GNIS.

I also agree that in this case choosing a different title that is at odds with a particular authority requires a significant burden of proof, especially in a case like place names where the authoritative names and the most commonly recognized names tend to be the same. But that is not always the case, and, in particular, in the case of plant names, the authoritative name (the scientific Latin name) is often at odds with the common English name most commonly used and which is most easily recognized by readers. In those cases there should be just as much burden on proving the authoritative name meets WP:NC criteria (in particular, "most easily recognized") as is put on any other name, don't you agree? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those times when it's good to remember WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I think if folks ever run into a disagreement here, the right answer should be chosen based on producing the best possible encyclopedia that behaves in a way that we think our readers will expect. If we can't reliably ascertain that a particular article name is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is always a safe answer. You know, sometimes I wish we could easily gather statistics on how often each link in a disambiguation pages is used -- there'd nothing better than actual usage statistics to help guide us in the right direction. Hmmmm... Warren -talk- 01:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"If we can't reliably ascertain that a particular article name is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is always a safe answer." Absolutely. Funny you should say that. You might be interested in this proposal I just made at WT:D. Anyway, that's a related, but separate issue.

The problem with invoking WP:IAR is that it opens Pandora's Box. For example, the dispute might be about whether the determine the most easily recognized name clause of WP:NC should be ignored because doing so violates WP:NOR. If I argue we should ignore WP:NOR in this case per WP:IAR, then that opens the door for them to cite WP:IAR to ignore the easily recognized name clause. So I don't like to use it. Yes, we all carry the IAR card to ignore "stupid" rules, but that's really only useful when everyone agrees on what rules are "stupid".

Similarly, "the right answer should be chosen based on producing the best possible encyclopedia that behaves in a way that we think our readers will expect." sounds good in theory, but it's full of too many ambiguous and subjective terms ("right", "best possible", "we think our readers will expect"). In fact, in the particular dispute I have in mind, one of the core issues is about what "we think our readers will expect". The botanists and botany-hobbyists think readers will expect scientific Latin names as titles of plant articles, and non-botanists (of the few of us that are involved over there) think common names, at least for relatively well-known plants, are more likely to be expected by our readers. So the botanists are arguing to use "reliable sources" (i.e. scientific flora) to name all plant articles, because anything else, like trying to determining the name most likely to be expected or recognized, is a violation of WP:NOR. That's why I am looking for some explicit clarification on this point at WP:NC and WP:NOR. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Born2cycle. I've actually invoked IAR for editing purposes maybe once a year; I like to think of it more as a reminder of what our real purpose is.

On to your concern -- It's generally established that we go with the most widely recognized names rather than the most technically accurate names. Marilyn Monroe instead of Norma Jeane Mortenson; Marilyn Manson instead of Brian Hugh Warner; and so forth. I fully appreciate why a botanist would prefer the Latin names for all articles, but they have to be willing to give a bit of that up for the most popular plants so that we do the best possible job as far as helping non-experts find information. List articles and categories can and should be used to ensure we still have lists of plants based on their Latin names (redirect articles from a Latin to a common name can be given categories so that they'll appear in a category article, albeit in italics). We've already long since decided to use the English names for places (Vienna instead of Wien, e.g.) and people (Muqtada al-Sadr instead of سيد مقتدى الصدر), so you'd think it wouldn't be too contentious to stick with English for the names of things, too.

As an aside, I find it fascinating that when it comes to naming things that humans didn't create (animals, plants, natural phenomenon), humans have managed to create two sets of words to describe these things -- one in Latin, and one in each modern language. I don't quite fully understand the fixation with using Latin to build taxonomies, when people in the 21st century don't actually use Latin to meaningfully communicate with eachother except for taxonomies and the occasional cutesy phrase (ad hoc, quid pro quo, etc.). I'd love to know the answer to why this practice continues today. Warren -talk- 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren, it is because plants exist all over the world and all countries write about them. One and only global name is usefull to make clear that the subject treated in a given article is understood as the same wherever you are in the world, without the need of a dictionary to translate the name of a plant to every other language. It is also the only way to know what you are refering to as there is no organization that regulates common names and they vary from place to place. That's why. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, join us at WT:NC (flora), particularly the section at the very bottom (though I'm checking out for a few days now). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please don't join us there for this anymore. At this point Born2cycle is simply hounding the plants editors to get them to stop writing, editing, and maintaining plants article because he doesn't like the Wikipedia plant naming guidelines. He needs to stop. He's been hounding us for two months now without a single break.

Oh, and, by the way, Born2cycle, as I have pointed out before, it's Botanical Latin, not necessarily scientific Latin, because it's not used except in the Botanical sciences.

Born2cycle, you're doing nothing but disrupt editing of plant articles with this ceaseless forum shopping and going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with no one agreeing with you. Please just stop it. --KP Botany (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I just read B2c's start of this discussion. At first it looks like he's about to argue in favor of using only scientific-name titles for articles on biological organisms -- but, no! He just wants WP:NC to throw out WP:NOR in order to make it easier for people like himself and PBS to argue in favor of the Googletest to determine the most commonly used names for article titles. What I don't understand about you, KP Botany, is that you think it's important enough to avoid this kind of endless blather at WP:NC (flora), but that it's okay if your counterparts at WP:NC (fauna) are saddled up with it. --Jwinius (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I got the same comment via e-mail, although a bit politer. It is the thing that is beginning to sink in from listening to PBS and B2c is that they advocate a policy that is impossible. So, I appreciate that instead of just defending the plant policy, I should also be over there is animals advocating for just such a policy for fauna naming. (Just to be clear, I, like most other editors being maliciously overwhelmed with the nonsense, am no longer listening to or really reading anything they have to say, and they seem only to engage each other.) --KP Botany (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The three content policies are there for content the NOR specifically says in the first paragraph "In articles". Any editor not familiar with the Naming Conventions Policy, could be excused from reading this section that such things as Google searches were not appropriate for helping to determine the most suitable name for an article. However a view of the pages under discussion at WP:RM will show anyone that it is the practice to use internet searches an other methods to determine the name to use for an article title. A view into the archives of the talk pages of POV page names will show that this is the way page names have been chosen since the start of the encyclopaedia. The section "Article naming " in WP:NPOV, could just as easily be in WP:NC as the two policies they do not contradict each other. --PBS (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between original research and just plain research

There is a big misconception above about what "original research" is. WP:NOR was formulated to prevent people from adding their own first-hand accounts of things to articles; as such it works in tandem with WP:V. So, I am free to look at what the New York Times says, and use that information. I am not free to use myself as a source. Applying this to naming conventions: If we go and do a google test to determine what the most commonly used name of a topic is, that is not original research; we are not making anything from scratch, we are using other sources. If we make the name up on our own, because we think it is the right name, then that is original research, and is frowned upon. Any questions?--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I kind of sort of agree with you, but I also think you've missed B2c's point. Do you think it would be okay for me to insert into article X "the most commonly used name for X is Y", and to cite that assertion with a Google search? Hesperian 10:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, here lies the distinction. Putting such a statement into an article is a statement of fact, and therefore requires (in principle) a better source than a Google search. But using something as the name of an article is not equivalent to stating that it's the most common name (or even that it is a name) - it's just an editorial decision, and these necessarily have to be made on our own judgement. Anyway, it's imposible for two articles to have the same name, so if the most common name (or only name) for two things is the same name, then it's not possible to use it for both.--Kotniski (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski has a good point. While I use WP:COMMONNAME as an example, we don't always use the most commonly used name, because sometimes we just can't, so we use other naming conventions, which, as Kotniski says, are there for editorial guidance. While we certainly can't put first-hand (i.e. "original") research into an article, the article has to have SOME name, and we rely on the tools at hand to guide us in making that editorial decision. That's not original research, that's just research. This is not the same as a content decision.--Aervanath (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But this is precisely what a policy of using common names for organisms amounts to, and not just original research, the very worst kind of original research when put into light with how high Wikipedia article pages often rank on web search engines: we are dictating what the most commonly used name is and making it what we declare it to be, at least on the web. --KP Botany (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I see this all the time with brand new translated common names. You go and check the sources and there it is: Wikipedia. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The most common name versus the canonical name

As you're probably aware, there is currently a long-running dispute over at the flora naming convention, which hinges on whether or not we're paying our dues to "use the most common name". I'll try not to import that long-running dispute over here (more than it already is), but there is one matter that arises from it that really does need to be dealt with here:

This policy is supposed to be descriptive of how we operate, not prescriptive; and as a description it is woefully inaccurate in the emphasis that it puts on "use the most common name".

In every field in which there exists canonical (i.e. official, standardised or formally published) names, I see a constant tension between "use the canonical name" and "use the most common name", with the former winning reasonably often, perhaps more often than not. Consider these examples:

• Books, movies, albums, songs, etcetera, are nearly always known by their actual names, irrespective of whether or not these are most common.
  • e.g. Metallica (album), not some disambiguation of "The Black Album".
• If it is easy to ascertain the gazetted name of a geographic place, the article on that place is almost without exception given the gazetted name as the title. Editors don't give a moment's thought to what the most common name is; they just consult the GNIS or the Gazetteer of Australia or whatever, and go with the gazetted name.
• Birds and mammals have standardised common (i.e. vernacular/vulgar) names, so our article titles always follow them, irrespective of whether they are the most commonly (i.e. usually) used names;
• The astronomy naming convention pays its dues to WP:COMMONNAME, but the tension is still there.
  • e.g. Talk:Halley's Comet/Halley's Comet archive. The article is now at Halley's Comet but the naming convention still advocates Comet Halley.

There are many more examples—in chemistry, medicine, ships, aircraft, broadcasting, ...—but I think I've made my point, which is that in practice "use the most common name" is not given the weight that a reading of this policy page would mislead you into thinking. On the contrary, when there is a canonical name, it is not at all unusual for editors to adopt it as the right name, without giving "use the most common name" a moment's thought.

I think the current wording of this policy reflects the prescription of a few idealists, rather than a description of how we actually operate in article space. Unless there are strong objections, I propose to begin editing this page to bring it in line with current practice.

Hesperian 12:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to object to this. Maybe trying to find the most common name is an idealistic goal; however, if you want a descriptive policy, I can tell you that it's very descriptive of how I and the other admins at WP:RM evaluate move discussions. (Of course, the four or five of us active there obviously can't impose our will on the whole community, so maybe we are the few idealists you are referring to.) However, we are supposed to be optimizing this encyclopedia for the layman over the specialist; that implies that we should be applying the principle of least astonishment to article names, and locating them at the most common name. This is distinct from the "vernacular" or "vulgar" name (which I think everybody already agrees on, I just wanted to restate it for anyone new to the discussion), and instead means the most "commonly-used" name, i.e. the name that most people would expect to find the article at. I don't think I'm saying anything revolutionary here. I am, however, willing to accept the possibility that sometimes people expect to find the article at the canonical name and not the most commonly used name; is that more along the lines of your thinking here?--Aervanath (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is: what would most people type in the search box when looking for the article? If it's the most commonly-used name, then use that; if it's the canonical name, then use that; I expect this will vary depending on the category.--Aervanath (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The latter half of your reply is reasonably persuasive. But whilst disagreeing with me, you seem to be mounting a fresh argument that leads to the same conclusion: this policy is overcooking "use the most common name". Hesperian 13:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think our opinions are not that far apart, actually. I originally mistook your position as "Forget WP:COMMONNAME, and just go with the canonical name." However, what you're actually saying (if I understand you correctly) is "Don't forget WP:COMMONNAME altogether, but the canonical name is used more often than not." Before I go on with what I think, please tell me if I've correctly understood your postion; I initially started off with a misunderstanding, and I don't want to continue if I'm working off different assumptions than you are. Have I read you correctly?--Aervanath (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, more or less. In fields where there is a canonical name, an across-the-board "use the canonical name" would be just as inaccurate as an across-the-board "use the most common name". What actually happens is each field makes its own tradeoff. Ornithographers says "The standard names for birds are very widely accepted and we would look silly if we didn't follow suit, so always use the standard name." Geographers say "Gazetted names are very widely accepted, so use the gazetted name in general, but be ready to make exceptions in exceptional circumstancesf (e.g. see the last paragraph of Uluru#Name. Geologists might say "Attempts to standardise the names of stratigraphic units have not been widely adopted, so lets just stick with using the most common name". My point is that these decisions are routinely made on Wikipedia per field, and this policy should reflect that reality, rather than inaccurately putting "use the most common name" on a pedestal. Hesperian 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this proposal. It makes sense, and it reflects the reality of how we tend to do things. I believe that it describes the way we do things for plants, it works for mammals and birds, it works for chemical elements and trains. As Hesp said above, it's descriptive, not prescriptive...which is the way that works best in the formulation of policies and guidelines. Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) is being assaulted for over two months now by two editors, User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing. However, their battle is largely about trying to force plant editors to use "the most commonly used name," for plant article titles. While attempting to get the two of them to source precisely where plant editors should find the most commonly used name, I have come to realize that all Wikipedia naming policies for organisms which require the use of common names are destined for failure. It simply cannot be done. All attempts to use the most commonly used name in English for article titles, for all but a few organisms, are ethnocentric, full of original research, and create problems and opportunities for disruption by editors such as PBS and B2c that would not exist at all if Wikipedia simply had a naming convention policy for organisms that required the articles be titled with the scientific name, according to the rules of scientific nomenclature, introduce the most common names in the lead, discuss them early in the article, and create redirects from the common names to the scientific name. --KP Botany (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this be discussed in full at Wikipedia naming conventions or somewhere appropriate. --KP Botany (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Common names cause article disruption, editing disruptions, arguments, and endless battles about the policy itself when naming organisms. They lead to problems such as using original research to decide what the common name is, and to Wikipedia then dictating, through prominent search engine results, what the most commonly used name in English is. They are ethnocentric, they're not standardized, and they may refer to many organisms. They're impossible to use and disrupt Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a more extreme version of what Hesperian is proposing above at #The most common name versus the canonical name; please comment on his suggestion.--Aervanath (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I will read it thoroughly. Thanks for the link. --KP Botany (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• This won't go anywhere, but allow me the first to say absolutely not. I'm happy to defend WP:PLANT's choice, even as I see the opponents point of view to a point, but I will defend WP:BIRD and WP:MAMMAL too. First off I object to any attempt to impose heavy top down rules from on high when the current system of maximum autonomy for the individuals and projects. Secondly I disagree with the assertion that it causes difficulties (occasional discussions at best) nor, with the standardised names available, does it entail much original resreach. Finally, from the point of view of consumers (ie our readers) common names are preferable when available for birds and mammals. What you gain in accuracy in scientific names you lose in approachability. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In approachability for what? You have to first be clear you're all approaching the same thing. Flora is still deep in the midst of a two month assault by two single minded editors who disagree with our policy (and strongly with each other) completely interrupting editing on plant articles by consuming plant article editors with their endless battering of points they cannot make. How is this "occasional discussions at best?" This is long term, pernicious interruption, not a discussion. And, they get away with it by using the "maximum autonomy" against us. Not by offering usable arguments or making salient points. --KP Botany (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

After over two months of a small group of people wanting to "impose heavy top down rules from on high" on plant naming; it might be time to take a long hard look at the current conventions covering the naming of organisms, which seems to foment endless and pernicious discussions covering the same ground over and over and over again. Its seems that one of the core policies of Wikipedia is "no original research", and the "commonly used name" issue seems to be very problematic in that regards. Hardyplants (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So because two plant editors are in nasty disagreement, all biological projects get swept up in the same thing? What sense does that make? Yes, we have occasional disagreements at WP:BIRD (blackbird being a recent example), but these are quickly sorted with a DAB page. And while in-the-know botanists may refer to plant species by scientific name, very few of our general readers will search for tigers or wolves or Common Blackbirds that way. And if we're just redirecting them to a scientifically named article when they type in tiger or wolf or blackbird, how is that "improving" things at all?! Even print encyclopedias (unless you're talking about specialized plant encyclopedias) use common names. MeegsC | Talk 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually they aren't plant editors...which is probably part of the problem. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And don't throw WP:NOR at me. If you are suggesting that titling the article on Aves in the order Sphenisciformes with Penguin constitutes original research I think you are twisting the policy out of all meaningful bounds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC): "...nor, with the standardised names available, does it entail much original research."

It is good that those outside of Wikipedia with interests in birds have managed to come up with a standardized naming scheme that works. This is not true for plants and most other living things, and when wikipedia picks one vernacular name over others, it does constitute original research and has POV issues too.

Which is why I have defended WP:PLANTs decision to set their own standards. But I will also defend WP:FISHs choice of Fishbase, WP:MAMMAL's choice of MSW3, and whatever system the reptile and amphibian people use (see to use common names were they exist, otherwise scientific). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For perspective - there are maybe 10,000 bird species and half that number of Mammal species WORLDWIDE, but 20,000+ species of plants in North America alone and maybe 400,000+ world wide. The argument that is being used to force us to change out convention on plant naming, is namely that this policy says we have too, since the problem is with this policy (or the interpretation of it) then this policy needs changing. Hardyplants (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your rationale for inflicting this on the other tree of life projects is simply to stop people from bothering the plant people? You aren't going to win many friends that way, and you're not going to get much support either. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::The rational is that we need a policy that works: If we are going to use one standardized police across all the different biological fields, then it needs to be the Binomial name, which has been given and agreed upon by those that know their field of study and have been published in reliable sources. The other option is to strengthen the hand of each project, so those few fields that have standardized names can utilize those names, and the others are not bogged down. Hardyplants (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a proposal one section above that does exactly that: "strengthen the hand of each project, so those few fields that have standardized names can utilize those names." But I fear this proposal will rob it of oxygen. Hesperian 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What name is given prominence in the work MSW3, shouldn't we use that if the consensus is to adopt its titles? 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with using scientific names for all ToL articles but it's not my call to make. Guidelines should describe what editors really do. In the case of birds and mammals, there are systems that work. It might be worth trying to document what's done for other taxa, and perhaps standardising whatever works best. But this should be done at the level of the WikiProject. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that EVERY biological project on Wikipedia already have a mixture of Scientific and common names in ther care. The vast majority of extinct taxa articles are found at their scientific names. For examples Anomalopteryx, Florissantia, Sphenacodon, and Smilodon. It seems like it would actually be bringing everyone into agreememt, the title would be the scientific and the article could easily discuss any and all common names.--Kevmin (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So, Kevmin, how would the average general reader find these scientifically named articles, since they won't have the foggiest clue what scientific name they should be looking for? MeegsC | Talk 23:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects if a unique common name exists, Disambiguation pages for those common names which are used to refer to multiple different species/genera. In the cases I list above there have NEVER been common names excpet in the case of Smilodon which is called a "saber-toth tiger", however since a number of different taxa have used this name the page is rightly a disambiguation/explanatory page with links to the different taxa.If they are looking up the page they are generally looking to learn about the organism what is wrong with learning the scientific name in the process?--Kevmin (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tyger, Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night :
What immortal hand or eye,
Could name thy fearful synonymy?

cygnis insignis, with apologies to Wm Blake [2]

Well, here is my opinion as a reader of animals articles: I have no particular knowledge about them and the dozen of scientific names I know, I've learnt at school 35 years ago. I have never edited any article about animals. As a reader, when I look for tiger, I want to learn more about them so, being driven to a family, tribus, or whatever page with a scientific name would be perfectly fine and welcome. I do not know the problems editors face with common names of these beings. I think redirects work properly and scientific names are part of the learning. I also think each project should have the final word of how to call their subjects. Now, as an editor of plants articles, I do not have any doubt that scientific names for article titles should be mandatory, not an option. The reasons have been exaustively discussed at project page so I will not repeat them all here. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the solution. The plants editors have firsthand experience of people outside their field trying to force upon them a naming convention that simply doesn't work in their field. I have no intention of doing the same thing to our good friends in the ornithology department. We have something that works for us. They have something that works for them. The inconsistency between the two approaches reflects an inconsistency in the real world. Hesperian 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What we've all been overlooking (I think)

Currently WP:COMMONNAME starts with the words "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication..." I think that our problems lie in that a few editors are ignoring that clause. It is perfectly OK for other accepted naming conventions to say "Hey, we're not going to use the most common name we can find by Google test, because there's already an established usage that is also widely-used. It may not strictly be the most common name, but generally our naming convention produces article names which are used widely enough in reliable sources that people will not be too surprised to find themselves there." I think that each specific naming convention should include an exception for "if a name is far more widely used than the name dictated by this convention, then we should still use that." Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa: I have, in the past, also been one of the editors putting WP:COMMONNAME on a pedestal. It's amazing how selective blindness works.--Aervanath (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)