Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict

Archives: /Archive 1

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content related to naming conventions, as part of a naming conflict has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming conflict RfC

A Request for Comment about a conflicted name has been opened here: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F. Views from editors involved with naming guidelines and uninvolved with the dispute are encouraged. The Land (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of table requires text cleanup

The Ambiguity persists section refers to a table, which seems to no longer exist. I don't understand exactly what that sentence is trying to say, so I can correct it myself. Libcub (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Settlement names in unrecognised countries

What would be preferred name for a settlement located in an unrecognised state, say Abkhazia, where the local name (Abkhaz) differs from the name used by Georgia (Georgian), which the world's states think Abkhazia is part of, and where many (but not all) of the international sources have chosen to use a third option (the Russian name). Since we should write descriptively and not care about right or wrong, and since settlements are self-identifying entities, should be use the current local name (Abkhaz), or should we follow international sources in this and use Russian names?sephia karta 02:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To further complicate the issue, say the settlement is rather obscure, and there is not a lot of references to it in English (language) international sources, and those few that do exist do not have a clear preference for one version or another. Also, say the majority of this settlements inhabitants are actually Georgians and use the Georgian name for it? What do we do then? (PaC (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Do you mind if I'd rather you not further complicate the issue? I am interested in the situation which I outlined above.sephia karta 22:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just making the description of the issue more in line with the reality. You may be interested in whatever you want. I am interested in this more realistic situation.(PaC (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

First: that's fine, but then start your own question, don't hijack mine. Second: what reality? I don't have any specific settlement in mind, but in any case the situation I outlined is not applicable to Ochamchira, in case that's what you're thinking, since there the Russian and the Abkhaz names actually coincide.sephia karta 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First:"start your own question"??? How old are you Sephia? This is not your private chat. I ask the question where I see fit. If there was somebody here with a good answer to your original question then chances were they would have a good answer to mine as well. Second: did I say anything about Ochamchire?(PaC (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

You follow me here and reply to my question with a 'more realistic' scenario without knowing what settlement I have in mind. I consider that rude. And there is no need to act like you're telling me off.sephia karta 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are deliberately trying to sabotage my question now that your twisted version did not fly. Most people would consider your behavior extremely rude. Grow up.(PaC (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

I'll let your thoughts speak for themselves then.sephia karta 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Wikipedia:Straw polls link

In the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Ambiguity persists section the link to Wikipedia:Straw polls should be removed because that proposal is rejected. Instead of "In those unsolved cases a poll, for example via Wikipedia:Requested moves, can be conducted.", it could be "For the unsolved cases use Wikipedia:Requested moves." or sonething like that. --Mskyrider (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Linux dispute

There is a dispute over at Talk:Linux as to whether the "Linux" slot in the WP namespace should occupied by an article about "Linux operating systems" or whether it should be a pure disambiguation page. Currently it is an article about the family of operating systems. The issue is complicated thus:

1. It is undisputed that what makes an operating system worthy of the Linux name is its inclusion of the Linux kernel.
2. It is undisputed that the name "Linux" technically (and maybe properly, but that is disputed by a few) refers to Linux, the operating system kernel, the article for which is found at Linux kernel.
3. Popularly, when someone says Linux, they probably mean much more than Linux (the kernel) and maybe even more than Linux (the family of operating systems each of which contains the Linux kernel), they may even mean all the applications packages in various Linux distributions.
4. There is a detergent called Linux.
5. Some hold that the proper name of almost all versions of Linux operating systems is GNU/Linux and others are vehemently opposed.
6. Recently one editor has been performing mass changes in articles changing links from GNU/Linux (which is a POV term, according to some, but is at least unambiguous) to Linux (which is often ambiguous).

(I consider the last two points only of tangential relevance to this particular discussion but they serve to inform the debate.)

In my view the "Linux" namespace slot has been misappropriated and that "Linux" should be a pure disambiguation page. Specifically I would like to do the following: (a) Move Linux to Linux operating system, (b) move Linux (disambiguation) to Linux and (c) leave linux kernel exactly where it is. I am trying hard to leave personal prejudice behind and despite a personal preference for the GNU/Linux term I am not in favour of naming the current Linux article GNU/Linux - with some that would be a highly unpopular move. I can't find any guidelines which disagree with my proposal [i.e. (a), (b) and (c)] and I believe the supporting guidelines for this are:

(1) use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things[1]

Hence "Linux" can't be used for the family of operating systems as Linux properly refers to the operating system kernel. I suggest "Linux operating system" and "Linux kernel".

(2) In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. For example a "common" name for a tsunami is "tidal wave" (this term being less often used for the tides-related tidal bore). For this reason, the Tidal wave page is a disambiguation page, with links to the two other pages, and not a page giving details about either tsunami or tidal bore.[2]

That's why I favour a plain disambig page. The technical vs popular usage of "Linux" is very similar to the technical vs popular usage of "tidal wave". Same solution, therefore.

(3) But it does mean that we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people. ibid.

Yup. The bare word Linux can be unreasonably misleading. A weak point but supportive of my proposal.

(4) If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".[3]

The discussion is ongoing and there is no compromise in sight. So, a plain title disambiguation page is best.

(5) When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta), that should be used.[4]

This is a guideline telling us to use Linux kernel and not Linux for the article on Linux (i.e. the kernel). And similarly, why we should use Linux operating system and not Linux for the operating systems.

The strongest argument against my proposal is that we are supposed to be populist. The quoted guideline is from WP:NAME:

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.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

In response I ask how come we have energy being the physics concept and work being a disambiguation page rather than some man-in-the-street article about labour, and why is car redirected to automobile and Mercedes to Mercedes-Benz, It seems that we do not dumb down at WP. That the term Linux is often used loosely or that it is used with implicit disambiguation (by context) does not, to me, seem to be good enough reason to have the Linux spot in the WP namespace occupied by an article on Linux operating systems.

Comment invited.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very late comment: "Linux" is a kernel, not an operating system. This is a simple fact. I favor calling things what they are, but have recently been told to take that opinion and stuff it. Before I do so, however, I just wanted to chime in here, in favor of calling operating systems that use Linux as their kernel by what they are, e.g., "GNU+Linux" or "GNU/Linux." When the Hurd reaches the level of Linux, presumably many operating systems that currently use Linux will switch to the Hurd; will any of them keep the name "Linux"? I hardly think so. Nor will they likely be renamed "Hurd," or even "GNU/Hurd," because the former would be as absurd as calling them "Linux" currently is, and the latter would be redundant. No, those operating systems that currently use accurate naming will simply drop "Linux" and call themselves "GNU" operating systems (since the temporary shoehorning of Linux into the system, which has always been a mere a stopgap measure until the Hurd is ready, will no longer be necessary), and those that don't currently use accurate naming will begin finally to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937

There is a dispute at Talk:Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 about inclusion of both airliners that crashed in the incident into the article's title. The norm for other articles is to either put both planes or a date and a geographical representation of the area of the title (2002 Southern Germany Mid-Air Collision was recommended, and is used here as an example). Only in the case of a commercial airliner crashing into a civilian plane is the commercial airliner's name the only one used in the title. Since the debate has reached a standstill, I would appreciate it if an administrator could look over it and make a ruling to end said standstill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreddy92 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed in resolving naming conflict edit war!

There is considerable disagreement at Talk:Thylacoleonidae.

Summary: Marsupial lion and Marsupial Lion do not point to the same location, due to a scientifically technical reason. However, a few of us believe that there should be a better way to handle the situation, which would involve disambiguation pages or links.

Warning-- a particularly stubborn user is edit warring on this, so be careful what you say.

If you can help, please see Talk:Thylacoleonidae. Thanks in advance! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming conflict not covered by this guideline

There's currently an argument at Talk:Tarot over whether references to tarot in all Wikipedia articles need to explicitly use the terms 'game-playing tarot', 'divinatory tarot' and 'occult tarot' to distinguish these different applications, or whether 'tarot' is sufficient if the context is clear. I believe it is highly awkward and artificial to require the qualifiers 'game-playing', 'divinatory' or 'occult' to be tacked on in every instance, since in normal usage, all three applications are normally referred to as 'tarot'.

This guideline explains what to do if there is a naming conflict, but doesn't give guidance on determining whether there actually is a conflict in the first place. The editor proposing this awkward naming convention is, I believe, inventing terminology to segregate concepts he believes should be distinct.

In a nutshell: is 'tarot' sufficient (assuming the application is clear from the context), or must we always use these bulky terms?

Can anyone point me to a guideline or ruling that would be helpful in resolving this argument? Fuzzypeg★ 04:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Or even, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Point, because it sounds like this behavior and insistence is becoming disruptive. Reliable sources, because that is a foundation of our work and we shouldn't prescribe terminology that our sources aren't using (good writing shouldn't be slavish either, and Wikipedia needs consistency of its own, but in a conflict it is an easy default). NOR, because insisting on these qualifiers isn't something a generalist audience recognizes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This is a matter of being precise in our language. I did not invent the term "occult tarot" but it is a term used in more academic writings on tarot. To tell you the truth, I don't even like the term but it's one that has been used by authors on tarot history so this is not a personal bias of mine. Simply Google the term "occult tarot" and one can find books from at least two authors, one of whom is Michael Dummett, and websites on tarot history have also used this term. On the deletion of the re-direct, I inadvertently recreated it thinking it's disappearance was due to an error in capitalization. I should have been informed of its deletion and the reasons for it. Nobody gave me the memo on my talk page! In articles pertaining to the classical elements to name an example, I think it should be specified it is an occultist interpretation. Fire is not a really a suit of the tarot! . I don't see the symbol for fire or these other elements on most tarot decks! Btw my last edit, as I write this, was on the French Tarot article where I specified it was the French game of tarot because I think it should also be known that it's a regional card game of France. Concepts exclusive to occult or divinatory tarot should be specified as such. Concepts exclusive to the Rider Waite deck such as the images chosen for trumps VIII and XI should also be specified as particular to that deck and not all of tarot. There is nothing bulky about the term "occult tarot" and because some aspects of tarot are independent of the occult, this term is in no way a tautology. It is POV language and not keeping with a world wide view to employ the word "tarot" as if it's the exclusive property of the occult.Smiloid (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place to conduct our debate; it is for questions and comments about the naming conflict guidelines. Lets keep our argument in one place, at Talk:Tarot. Fuzzypeg★ 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

This paragraph in relation to Ireland is bunkum. It is written from the perspective that Republic of Ireland is the name of the state and Ireland is the common name. That is false. There is a dispute which is being talked through (badly) at the talk page of WP:IMOS. It is unhelpful that this disinformation is being used as fact in argument. Comment welcome there.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Used WikiCleaner, please do not revert

Used WikiCleaner software to fix disambig. links. Please do not revert, thanks! Funandtrvl (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Synonymous terms used widely by WP:RS

Per: "Sources of comparable importance use different names," I could swear I read last week that if a phrase is the main phrase used but other phrases are used almost as much by WP:RS (whether or not they have their own articles) one can say in the Lead: "XXX YYY (also frequently called WWW YYY and ZZZ YYY) is etc..." I can't find that now in this article or WP:NAME. Did I miss it, has it been removed or is it somewhere else? If it's somewhere else, it needs to be here in that section as well. This has been very contentious in two different articles and I just discovered these pages which help clear up a few other issues. Just need help on this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" are not synonyms, as has been explained to you over a week ago on the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1. It would be nice to discuss this in general terms since the issue of when and what kind of synonyms have to have sources is a wikipedia wide issue that I have recently become aware of and not just one on one particular article.
2. That editor you link to makes the point that while Zionist Lobby and Israel lobby are synonymous, Jewish Lobby is not always synonymous with the other two. However, while I agree 100% that is true, the fact is all sorts of reliable sources, including Jewish publications, conflate Jewish and Israel lobbies all the time. And it's wikipedia's job to describe things as they are, not as we want them to be because it may be good for our particular POV. That is the whole point of WP:NAME and WP:NAMING CONFLICT, as I have just discovered. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question is only about equating "Jewish lobby" with "Israel lobby", nothing more. Your persistent mis-application of guidelines like WP:NAME is a separate issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to tell someone they are misapplying a guideline, you should tell them which one, in what article and why. I have to assume you are referring to my error corrected above. But WP:Naming conflict is all about NPOV per the first sentence of WP:Naming conflict: A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Still trying to find out exactly where the rules for putting synonymous names in the lead are written. Have run into about 4 dubious cases since writing the above in this section's lead and I think this article should link to such information so people can do it properly. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Common subsets versus uncommon supersets with shared names"

I've just removed this undiscussed addition to this guideline, contributed by an editor who wants to use it to settle a content dispute that she or he is currently involved in at Talk:Glider. I'm not taking any position on its eventual inclusion here; but as things stand, there's a clear conflict of interests. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your removal. Since:

a) you're not claiming it's controversial

b) this is only a guideline and can be overridden by consensus

c) it tends to minimise arguments (which is the purpose of this guideline after all)

d) it's a good idea that has been applied in so far, jet engine, steam engine and internal combustion engine

e) having it here in no way settles any dispute anywhere, but tends to avoid them

You're also not assuming good faith; and I don't think that it will settle the dispute in glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel compelled to revert your reversion since:

a) It's demonstrably controversial and I can't understand how you can claim otherwise, given that you've cited it in an attempt to gain leverage in a content dispute here. Later in the same discussion, you admit that there's been similar contention in a number of other situations in the past. Perhaps the participants in those discussions should be invited to comment on this proposed change. Were they invited to do so?

b) Any guideline can be overriden by consensus, or simply ignored. However, just because consensus can override a guideline to hard-code the font of every article into Comic Sans 20pt doesn't mean that such a guideline should be written.

c) Does it? I'd like to see the proof before you go writing this into a guideline.

d) I will look into these over the next few days and comment further. I'm certainly not convinced that it's a good idea, based on what you've attempted to do with the glider and sailplane articles. Even the fact that you may have had your way with restructuring other articles in the past may not indicate this is a good idea.

e) How is this different from your assertion at c)? Again, simply asserting that it is so doesn't make it so.

I'm perfectly willing to assume that this was a good-faith faux pas. Nevertheless, it looks to me like a pretty extreme case of asking the other parent; indeed, attempting to become the other parent!

Whether or not you thought it would "settle" the dispute at glider, you attempted to invoke it there, indeed quoting it verbatim while failing to mention that the "guideline" was in fact something that you yourself had recently made up! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrably is not significantly controversial, see a recent discussion on wikien-l and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Common_subset_names. People aren't exactly falling over themselves to argue about it. Except you. Who died an made you God of the wikipedia exactly?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If this proposal were uncontroversial, then I would expect that it could be implemented at Glider without opposition. This is clearly not the case. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. When has application of a policy or guideline ever been completely without opposition. People still argue about NPOV. Even if the guideline is not followed in glider (and probably that's not the way to bet) the batting would be about 5:1 on this principle historically, I'd forgotten about aircraft engine, rocket which also worked that way, there may be others as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

...which means that it's controversial... --Rlandmann (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, let's get this straight, your total argument is that there is an unfinished discussion in one article, which like any consensus in any article can override any guideline anyway; and that it's 'controversial'. That's not an argument.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm seeing at "Glider" (finished or unfinished) appears to be determined opposition to the implementation of exactly the principle contained in this proposed addition to the guidelines. You've also alluded to previous opposition at other articles, which further leads me to think that the suggestion is problematic at best. I'm also curious about the circumstances under which those other discussions were "finished". How would you characterise that? --Rlandmann (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your vague 'curiousity' about 'circumstances' do you know credit at all. If you feel that the principle did not work out correctly in any other article, by all means reopen the discussion there. In the meantime I see this as purely bloody minded. Let's put it this way, give up this garbage here, or I'll reopen the discussion on glider, as I will have no other option, and I believe I will prevail both there and here. Your choice.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I would argue precisely the converse- it's only worth having a guideline here if it is slightly controversial. The whole point of this guideline is to minimise arguments, while generally giving a good result, if it wasn't controversial then it would be completely pointless. I'm therefore reverting the change. It's up to you if you want to revisit this again, but I would strongly recommend against it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Threats to cause trouble elsewhere if you don't get your way aren't really helpful. You are more than free to open or re-open discussion on "Glider" any time you like (as far as I can see, it's ongoing anyway, so I'm not really sure what I'm being threatened with here). Furthermore, labelling people who disagree with you as merely "bloody minded" and their opinions as "garbage" isn't very helpful either.

I didn't label your opinions as garbage, it's your actions that I find as unacceptable, you're reverting a considerable proportion of my edits out of hand, and you've just left me a message on my talk page essentially asking me if it's OK to canvas other editors!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting that aside, could you please answer the question that you ignored last time. How would you characterise the outcome of discussions on those other articles? Did you actually achieve consensus with the other editors involved? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, yes. Not being a sysop and not one to form cabals I'm unable to force my views on other editors (ahem), can you say the same?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Which actions do you find unacceptable? What have I reverted out of hand?

I personally don't consider asking other editors about their experiences of rescoping per your proposed additions to this guideline to be canvassing. Nevertheless I wanted to be transparent and up-front about what I hoped to do, in case you had any objections on those grounds. Since you apparently do, I won't be proceding.

Can you suggest an alternative process by which I can test your assertion that the rescopes had the weight of consensus behind them? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that people aren't discussing it or changing the article or discussing it further or creating similar articles with different definitions is usually considered to be good evidence for consensus in the wikipedia. If you insist on testing it in discussion form do so on the talk page of the particular article in the normal way.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will formulate a question or two, and run them by you for your approval before posting them to the relevant pages. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, this is already core policy. See Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View:

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[4] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors.

A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view

My reading of this is that your creation of (for example) unpowered aircraft is very strongly disfavoured by this core policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally, this also is very clear on this matter:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this would apply in situations where there is demonstrably a controversy outside the pages of Wikipedia over what something should be called, or what a term should include or exclude. We don't (for example) want separate pages on Danzig and Gdansk (to cite just one of Wikipedia's most acrimonious feuds).

In cases where a Wikipedia editor creates a controversy her- or himself, I don't know that it constitutes a notable POV that needs to be included in an article.

Therefore, a blanket guideline such as the one you've proposed to add here reflects the core policies that you've cited here, but in fact, stretches beyond them. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the bit I just quoted mention controversy? It says all significant views, not all controversial views!!! How do you get to the point that you think you can pick one, such as a definition of glider that excludes, for example, gliding mammals, and then claim, 'I see no controversy' and then override NPOV in that way? Surely you must be joking Mr. Rlandmann!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please moderate your tone and keep this discussion civil?

The word "controversy" never appears in the section that you just quoted. However, it and its near-synonyms (in the context) "conflicting" and "competing" appear frequently in the guideline that you have taken this quote from. Please take a look at the "Reasoning behind neutrality" section which explains why the policy exists in the first place.

Are you aware of published sources that treat the term "glider" as broadly as you propose to? (or better, any that indicate that there is a difference of opinion as to how the word should be applied) I am not. If you can produce evidence of "significant views" in reliable sources that diverge on this point, please do so. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through all that here, right now, that's going to have to go on in glider etc. In general terms, there are plenty of notable definitions of 'glider' around that describe a glider as basically anything that glides, others that some powered gliders are also gliders, and further that gliding mammals are also noted gliders. Even birds routinely soar, which I'm sure you'll agree is a form of gliding. These are all not in the glider article, and are extremely easy to source.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The take-home point in this talk page is that the generality of articles with respect to their name is enforced by NPOV wherever reliable sources can be found, which in practice is nearly always, except for particularly obscure topics. This point needs to be made clearer in this guideline, as it comes up all the time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that a thing glides does not mean that it is a "glider", at least in the sense that anybody actually uses the word. But you're right; that's a topic for Talk:Glider.

As I see it, the point in this talk page is that an attempt to construct a "one size fits all" guideline like this is a very bad idea if it leads to (IMHO) illogical outcomes like the one you're putting forward for glider.

Sure, guidelines can be sidestepped or even ignored on a case-by-case basis, but I think you'll agree that once an idea is put into writing on a guideline or policy page, it acquires a certain weight that it doesn't otherwise have. As things stand, I don't see why cases for the fundamental rescoping of articles shouldn't have to be made on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the onus to make that case should be on the person advocating such a fundamental rearrangement of content.--Rlandmann (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't really play the 'I think it gives a poor result in case X therefore I can override or refuse to state core policy on a guideline page'. Even if it did give a poor result, which I really doubt, that's just tough-NPOV is not negotiable in the wikipedia, and in conjunction with reliable sources it still controls the content of wikipedia articles in the way that I have indicated.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This implication of the core policy needs to be pointed out here, otherwise many others will fall down the same hole that you and others in other articles have done, to the significant detriment of generality and scope of the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the latest posting by Wolfkeeper is related to discussion above. I have therefore reversed it. If you believe that this amendment by Wolfkeeper was justified, or if you have a contrary view, please may we have a debate here before altering a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. Please note that Wolfkeeper has also amended the guidelines on disambiguation emphasising the importance of NPOV. I feel that this may be related. JMcC (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you noticed he had not commented in 6 days, and my edit neither changed policy nor the guideline in any way, it merely pointed out that which is already true. If you can explain how I was supposed to have actually changed the guidelines or policy with this edit I would genuinely be most intrigued to know.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Name collisions

This is an issue that arises from time to time for me, & although I have been handling this on a case-by-case basis which mostly works (based on an absence of serious objections), I still am uncomfortable about my decisions. (And I am still amazed how how many names of Ethiopian people, places & things are the same names used in Japan, China, Italy & India.) So what should we do when two different subjects share the same name?

My primary rule of thumb is "first come, first unqualified": if an article on a Japanese town of that name already exists, for example, then the Ethiopian one is qualified as "X, Ethiopia". (I'll ignore the mess that results when I encounter two places in Ethiopia with the same name.) But when I discover the name of a town in Ethiopia is already in use as the name of a character in a video game, or a brand name (which has happened)... well, I'm not exactly willing to live by my rule in those cases; I feel that a person, place or thing in the Real World (TM) should take priority -- & be unqualified -- over one in a fictional world.

That's just one aspect of the problem: one could go into the use of parentheses, when there are enough names to justify creating a disambiguation page, & whether in the case of conflicts over geographical names the issue of size (either in area or inhabitants) should be a factor. Thoughts? Directions?

(BTW, I tried to find any trace of a policy or discussion on this matter before posting this, & while I am amazed at the amount of pages devoted to various problems with assigning names, I failed to find one -- which either means that it doesn't exist, or it is buried so deep in the maze of policy pages that only an expert could find it.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the maze of guidelines we've created is in need of some serious sorting out. But I think the one you might be looking for is WP:Disambiguation, particularly the section "Is there a primary topic?" I don't think it does or should have any dependence on whether things are real or fictional, just how likely it is that people are going to be looking for them in an encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

About self-identifying names

The whole section on self-identifying names ("Types of entities") seems somewhat confused. I suspect it was written with Macedonia in mind, but if it were taken literally and generalized, it would imply a whole lot of things that we don't do (like always use the local official name for cities). Any objection to it being tidied up?--Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, so I'll have a go.--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've made an attempt, and found much that seemed to need to be cut. (The section title is now "Self-identifying terms".) Let me know if anyone thinks I've left out anything important. I cut out the bit about distinguishing "self-identifying" from other terms, since I don't think our policy on naming mountains (Mount Everest, for example) differs significantly from our policy on naming cities on the grounds that the latter are populated and the former are not. And I cut out the Carimba/Mupatu example since it seems to be geared towards making a point about the Macedonia dispute or some other such dispute - I don't think a hypothetical example can be helpful here, since realities are much more complex.--Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored this section, since it is useful, very important, only one person decided to remove it - and it is of particular interest relevant to articles such as the Roman Catholic Church - Catholic Church article. Xandar 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's completely at variance with other policies and guidelines (WP:NCGN, for example). Can you explain how it is useful or important, and what its relevance is to the Roman Catholic Church? --Kotniski (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict. The guidance you quote states that it does not over-ride other guidance. And in this guideline it specifically states Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin. " So there is no conflict. Xandar 12:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks like this discussion is continuing at #"pro-life" below.--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy/Maundy Thursday

Hello, I am looking for some advice on a naming issue that has NPOV connotations. There is currently a major debate going on regarding the article title for Maundy Thursday; see the talk page. It is my feeling, and that of a significant minority of editors, that the title violates NPOV as reflecting particular linguistic, religious, etc. traditions, and that "Holy Thursday" is a better, fairer title that encompasses religious traditions that do not use the "Maundy" label. A majority of editors disagree, but it seems to me that their argument relies on their perception of the frequency of usage of one as opposed to the other. My feeling is that, irrespective of frequency issues, the usage of both is close enough that we are obliged to use the more neutral of the terms. It is clear enough to me that this is not going to go anywhere without getting some of WP's dispute resolution running; this strikes me as a very similar debate to the aluminium/aluminum debate (or airplane/aeroplane), where neither side is likely to be convinced by the other's logic, at least without some authoritative interjection/interpretation of Wikipedia's policies on this matter. I thought it would be helpful to get the input of people who regularly attend to these concerns. Thank you. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"pro-life"

See also the discussion on #About self-identifying names above.

The term "pro-life" is propaganda. Who is "anti-life," besides pro-global-nuclear-war-ists? Even the homicidal and suicidal are not necessarily "anti-life," they simply want to end one or more individual lives. The debate is over "abortion," not "life." There are activists on both sides of the abortion rights debate, but I can't even think of any genuine "anti-life" activists. Even those who advocate the eradication of Homo sapiens generally do so for what they perceive to be the benefit of other species. Again, "pro-life" is pure propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia except to reference its usage. When referencing the debates between those who call themselves "pro-life" and their opponents, an encyclopedia ought to avoid propaganda terms and use properly descriptive ones. The policy of calling groups by the names preferred by their members can be rather easily reduced to the absurd and is therefore impossible to maintain consistently. Better to call things what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is another situation which shows that the section of the guidance on self-identifying names removed by one person at the end of April needs restoring - which I have done. One can argue endlessly on whether a group "ought" to be called by any particular name - pro-choice or pro-life. The fact is that they use these names. The guidance makes the solution clear. Xandar 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's solution is the reverse, surely? We don't automatically use self-identifying names. That's why I consider this passage misleading.--Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the agreed policy of the guideline. In other words, it's what should be done. To change that guidance needs a lot more than one person's opinion. As far as I know the guidance is generally followed, except in the case of English Language names for foreign places, where another policy applies: eg Poland not Polska. An example of the use of this policy is Mormon Church which directs to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Xandar 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So if it isn't applicable to places, surely it shouldn't start off by trying to make a distinction between different types of places? Can't the whole section be reduced to a statement something like "If it is not clear what is the most common name for something in English, prefer the name that it uses to identify itself" (and then give some real-life examples)?--Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I was talking about the special case of English language names for foreign places. But it is basic to English Wikipedia that the English Language name of the body institution or place be used. But if that body has a preferred English Language name, that should be used. For example: Peking redirects to Beijing, and Calcutta to Kolkata. I do not think it will be a benefit to anyone to shorten the guidance, since the purpose of guidance is to provide a comprehensive aid to dispute resolution. Xandar 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That oversimplifies why we use Kolkata. It's not simply a matter of local preference; it has also become English usage, at least in Indian English and probably further. See WP:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So if I call myself "the literal supernatural creator of the universe" and do something to become notable enough to warrant an article here, then Wikipedia will accept that I am the literal supernatural creator of the universe and refer to me as such, without questioning the absurdity of doing so? I hardly think so. More likely, my article would be named according to my birth name, with a note in the lede that I refer to myself as the literal supernatural creator of the universe. Then there would be a section dedicated to the controversy surrounding my self-given name, which would consist of an ever-increasing list of "on-the-other-hands," going back-and-forth endlessly and generating the bulk of the talk page discussion. Yet all of this absurdity would be preferable to simply accepting my self-appointed designation as the literal supernatural creator of the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. If you really become notable under that name, then that will be the title of your Wikipedia article. See Badly Drawn Boy for an example. sephia karta | di mi 17:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: 1) change name to "the literal supernatural creator of the universe"; 2) become notable enough to warrant a WP article; 3) prove sephia karta wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider the article on Emperor Norton. Obviously, he was not an emperor but he became notable because of his claim to be an emperor. Wikipedia isn't saying that he was an emperor and isn't just titling the article Emperor Norton because he called himself as such but because he was called that by everyone else. --Richard (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• But we don't use Catholic Church; because it's not common usage - Roman Catholics use it, and not all of them; some of them prefer to communicate with the rest of the English-speaking world. So it's a bad example.
• Cabinda is a strikingly bad example; if we preserve this, we should use Fooland and Barland, not a potential, if now quiescent, naming conflict.
• Nevertheless, can both of you agree that self-identification is one of the claims that naming discussions do in fact take under consideration?
  • For one thing, self-identifications often do become common usage; I like the inversion of "anti-choice" and "anti-life", but those aren't suitable terms to explain the conflict in an encyclopedia - yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Above remark is now out of date. Article name now is Catholic Church. Likewise Orthodox Church. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper moves, which violated the only part of this page which is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Those weren't improper moves. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. This issue relates specifically to WP:NPOV#Article naming and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Altering guideline without Community-Wide Consensus

Does this long passage on self-identifying names belong in a naming guideline?

The passage concerned being the one which was restored in this diff.--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kontiski and one other seem to be determined to drastically cut a major section of this guideline on self-identifying names without any consensus whatsoever. This is an agreed Wikipedia POLICY GUIDELINE. As such it needs not only a good reason and a very wide consensus to change, it needs a consensus that reflects feeling across the community. I can see no good reason to cut this long-established guideline, and no good reason has been presented here. We can't have people just altering guidance to suit themselves. So can these people stop taking it upon themselves to alter policy guidance without proper Wiki-wide consultation. Xandar 10:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, all this could be said the other way round - Xandar and no other are determined to keep reinserting a section that seems (on the basis of practice and other guidelines) not to enjoy community consensus, or even to make much sense. You seem to be mainly interested in it because you think it supports your arguments about what to call the (Roman) Catholic Church article, so you're hardly in a position to accuse others of altering it to suit themselves. Anyway, what matters is whether it clearly and accurately states how we do things - what evidence do you have for that? Evidence has been given above on this page that it doesn't.--Kotniski (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My principal point is that this guidance was written in Summer 2005, and the part Kotniski wants to remove has been in the guidance since July that year. It has been there for the whole lifetime of the guidance and enjoyed community support for all that time. It should not be significantly altered or removed on the whim of one or two people. I believe it has a very useful purpose in specifying how naming guidance works in practice - with a clear theoretical example. Of course I was interested in it because the policy is relevant to a recent dispute. I'm not saying this is set in stone, but any significant change has to be carefully negotiated and approved by the wider WP community, certainly more than a couple of people who just happen to be here. I don't think there is a good reason for cutting this so drastically. It might also be useful to involve more of the original authors in any proposed changes. Xandar 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question Why do those who want to remove the section want to do so? On the face of it it looks useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me: (a) it doesn't have a clear relation to this page (it talks about using names "in" articles when this page should be about naming articles, and it isn't clear if any of this relates to that topic); (b) it is based on premises that don't have any following on WP (that local names for populated places somehow have a different status than local names for geographical features; and that we always call things by their local/self-adopted names rather than by their common English names). In other words, it doesn't reflect accepted WP editorial practice, and therefore has no place on a page which is marked as a guideline. (It could be made into an essay.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically you seem to be quarrelling with the policy that the names chosen by self-identifying entities to identify themselves should be followed by Wikipedia. The alternative would be for Wikipedia to decide what these entities names SHOULD be, even if they dislike or reject those names. That is a lot more than just the trimming, or shortening of the guidance that was initially claimed by those wanting the change. It would be a major change of policy that would re-start a hundred now-dormant naming conflicts across Wikipedia. Mormom-Latter Day Saints, Macedonia-Greece, Clay-Ali, Catholic-Roman Catholic, Orthodox-Eastern Orthodox, Coptic-Ethiopian Orthodox etc. etc. Basically I think the established guidance adopts the correct principle of WP editors not overruling people, cities or organisations as to what their name is. As far as the other point goes, the guidance is "Wikipedia naming conflicts" It doesn't just say "titling conflicts". Xandar 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the principle (as stated in other better-known and better-followed policies and guidelines) is that we use the names by which things/people are best known in English. In the great majority of cases that's also the self-identifying name, but that doesn't mean that self-identification is the principle that we follow. I'm certainly not saying that we decide what the name SHOULD be, just what it IS - but based primarily on third-party sources rather than the subject's own preference. And I don't mind the self-identifying name being taken into account as one of the factors considered when it's not clear what the common name is - but the way this passage is written, it makes it sound like the self-name should automatically trump all others. --Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, however it would be a major change of Wikipedia policy to do as you suggest - and a change that would have many ramifications in re-igniting conflict. At the moment the guidance is clear and easily followed, making it more obscure for no good reason, would cause endless disputes. One name that Kotniski's proposed new policy would almost certainly alter would be the Church which most people would find by typing Mormon Church. Xandar 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No new policy is being proposed; I just want to get rid of a passage that misstates existing policy. (Look at Burma, for example - we don't go with the self-identifying name.) Given the lack of interest in this discussion, it seems that no-one is interested in this page anyway, hence any changes made here almost certainly won't have any effect on the way things are actually done, they will just prevent anyone who chances on this page by accident from being misled.--Kotniski (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be your view alone, that the clearly-stated guidance, that has been here for rfour years, unchallenged, and used in many disputes is "MISSTATING POLICY"! This is an amazing conclusion! The policy is quite clear about self-identifying names. And there is no mandate to change it. You seem to be confusing the WP:Use English policy with the one on self-identifying names. In cases where a country or person has a self-identifying name that has significantly BETTER usage in English, then the English form of the self-identifying name should be used. That is the general rule. Naples for Napoli for example. Sometimes, when the English name is so well used that to use another would cause confusion there are special issues, such as Burma. The change of name by the military government to Myanmar is also opposed by many Burmese democrats. Bombay however has changed its name with popular agreement. However these are not reasons for changing the rule - which is what you are really proposing. Xandar 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can the two parties please provide a clear summary of the issue? Examples and all that aside, what is the specific statement that is in question? The current wording certainly goes against the fresh WP:POLICY#Content rules on 'theorizing', which is certainly what a statement like the following is:

"A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate or non-human entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain, or a non-human entity such as an animal, does not have a name for itself."

This is inappropriate and unclear, but I'd like to know what the real issue here is. The amount of time that something has existed as policy is irrelevant, if some prior broad consensus discussion for its inclusion does not exist.    M   02:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to point to a specific statement when the whole thing is unclear. Certainly this theorizing about differences between populated and inanimate places needs to go - I've never seen this distinction play a role in discussions about place naming. If there are areas of WP where self-identifying names are prioritized (Xandar suggests this is the case with names of church organizations) then this should be stated, but whatever it is that we are trying to state here needs to be set out clearly and concisely.--Kotniski (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well the entire thing should be either removed, or rephrased to not require a long speculative account, filled with examples, of what it means for a thing to be "self-identifying". Most of this, especially the stuff about inanimate objects, can be replaced with "Some persons and organizations have stated preferred names for themselves. In such cases where a thing cares what it's called, we..."    M   08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For reference, there are only 4 non-reverting editors having over 5 edits on this page:

[name] (total edits, chars sum: added minus removed, chars added, chars removed, content moves)
ChrisO           (29, 14566, 3250, 17816, 22)
Francis Schonken (13, 2409, 1324, 3733, 16)
Wolfkeeper       (11, 0, 0, 0, 0)
Kotniski         (6, -2371, 2942, 571, 6)

Which doesn't look too good, in terms of diversity. This should mean that the person claiming that widespread community support for some specific wording exists should provide evidence.    M   09:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is allegedly "unclear" about a self-identifying name. Either a body has a name for itself or it doesn't. A mountain doesn't name itself. A country DOES. It's not too hard to understand. The length and the examples ADD to the clarity - which is needed in contentious naming disputes. This policy has stood for many years and is quite clear. The statement of konitski that it isn't used is just supposition on his part, with no proof whatsoever. Similarly the lack of changes to the policy show its stability and usefulness rather than vice-versa. So far I have seen no rationale for a change other than WP:Idontlikeit. It would certainly need a lot more than Kotniski and a couple of his friends to change such a basic policy. Xandar 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at it this way: If it's clear, you don't need to go on and on about rocks and trees and birds. It's entirely irrelevant that this specific wording has stood for many years, as long as nothing substantive changes. So, what do you see as the substantive (important, crucial, unchangeable) parts of this section?    M  

Believe it or not, it has come up. Otherwise the community wouldn't have seen fit to put it in the guideline. People argue over all sorts of names, I don't see how more examples and more clarity could be a bad thing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against Kotniski proposals to cut the section. It would be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy to cut out a section on what entities self-descibe their own name as. The section is very useful and should remain within the article. There doesn't really seem to be a good reason to remove it, other than, as Xandar pointed out WP:Idontlikeit. If it isn't broke don't fix it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The line Kotniski objects to certainly is needed. There are plenty of disputes over the names of inanimate objects - the Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf) and the Sea of Japan (or East Sea) are just two examples. In those cases there's no "definitive" name for such things - we go with what is most frequently used in English. Countries, cities and other geopolitical bodies are a different matter because they do have a self-selected name. That's why we make that distinction in the guideline. It's an important distinction to make, because disputes over geopolitical names and geographical names need to be treated somewhat differently. As the original author of the guideline, I suggest that the line should stay. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current guideline could use some review, rethinking and possibly rewriting. I'm not prepared to lay out a coherent discussion of the issues at this time. However, pending a thorough review of the guideline, I think we should keep the text that Kotniski wishes to delete. Using the Self-identifying name is a good guideline. --Richard (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A major part of the issue here is the objection to the wording and the theorizing, not to the actual substantive parts of the policy. The weird "self-identifying" self-identifying terminology needs to be removed in favor of something coherent. I read that section and my mind goes numb; there's a much easier way to state things.    M   22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, I cleaned up a bunch of this as per WP:POLICY. Nothing substantive was removed, but the weird and confusing theorizing was mostly cut. By the way, a self-identifying name, much like a self-identifying homosexual or wikipedian, is someone who identifies themselves as that label. In this context, it basically means a name that identifies itself as a name, which is nonsense. The term we want to use here is "preferred name", as in that little box, on forms, where you list the name that you prefer to be addressed by.    M   23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the policy is getting watered down a bit. The entity under the old wording doesn't have to state that they prefer one term, they could also simply use one name most the time without explicitly stating that they prefer the name; I don't get the feeling that the current wording captures that idea.

As for the first sentence of the self-identifying section, does this mean we should mention it, or that we should title the article this way?" Yes, this guideline is designed to select a single title for an article. It is stating (and is commonly interpreted to mean) that articles should be titled by the name that an animate entity chooses to use for itself, whether or not others think they have the right to use that name; this policy helps us avoid taking sides in political disputes and helps wikipedia remain neutral. Here's what I think its trying to say: Where self-identifying names self-selected names are available, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether an self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed it to reflect this. I've also removed some of the wording:

• These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. -- we don't care how important a person's key identity is to them, we just want to avoid conflict
• This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. -- we don't officially advise our editors to take a more cautious stance towards 'self-identifying' entities specifically. All entities, including the ones that think that, say, "creation scientists" shouldn't be called scientists, are worthy of respect.
• this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. -- no, it's not like we're titling articles "the artist who calls himself the artist formally known as prince"

and so on. I've also excluded the verbose examples as per WP:POLICY#Content, if someone wants to start an essay using those examples, that would be fine. If I've missed anything, please let me know and I'll change it again.    M   03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a great improvement in terms of presentation - at least we can see what it's trying to say now. I think, though, that you've actually strengthened it in terms of substance - where previously it talked about using names within articles, it now says that the self-identifying name "should be used" as the article title. Clearly there are exceptions to this (otherwise it would conflict with WP:NC) - perhaps this should be reflected in the wording? For example, we could delete "even if they do not have a right to use that name" (as redundant), and replace it with "subject to other Wikipedia naming conventions."--Kotniski (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The lack of clarity in the previous wording means that we can't figure out what the consensus was actually for. I began my rewrite by basically copying Kraftlos's statement, "that articles should be titled by the name that an animate entity chooses to use for itself, whether or not others think they have the right to use that name". My guess is that people explained things somewhat clearly somewhere in this talk page history, got consensus, and then wrote something that was extremely difficult to understand without this context. I think that the intent was actually to talk about the naming, not the title of the article. The NC policy is huge (tldr) - which parts would this conflict with? (If it doesn't explicitly conflict, then we can just let them point to POL, which says policies win out over guidelines.)    M   08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to conflict with the overriding "use common name" principle, as well as many other specific naming conventions, such as those for monarchs. Generally the naming conventions pages are all mixed up, with different things being stated as rules in different places, and no clarity about what takes precedence over what (there was an idea some time ago to reorganize it all as a list of factors to be taken into account in naming decisions, which would have been more logical, but didn't happen).--Kotniski (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if we should mention this. It might imply that this can just be ignored because there's a policy. On the other hand, if someone actually identifies a conflict between, say, royal names and this page, the status of guideline and policy will soon be noted anyway. Provisos, and all that.    M   23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think too much was removed. I have restored some of the sentences including the rationale for the policy and the briefer examples. With no rationale, the guidance simply looks arbitrary. I also think the long example regarding the Cabindans-Maputans is useful in explaining the reasoning, and if it is too long to go in the main text, it should be retained as a note. Xandar 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule is now sufficiently-clearly worded that examples are not needed. For the two insertions, can you think of a case where they would actually be needed? If not then we exclude them. The last sentence, before your revert, already justified things (to remain neutral). The insertions are actually rather controversial and conflict with established policy:

• Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. -- No, if I say 'bombay' is the correct name of bombay, you can't tell me that, no, "mumbai" is actually the correct name. It isn't. It's merely one of many names, but the only type out of all of them that we can choose consistently.
• not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. -- hell no. We don't take any position on what is or isn't a key statement of one's own identity. That's not the reason we have this rule, the reason is simply to avoid conflict.
• This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. -- no, we are not going to instruct our editors to give these entities special treatment or consideration
• Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. -- I have no idea what this means, but

Your revert makes me somewhat impatient, since I've explained in detail above why these statements not only are bad, but violate the WP:POLICY policy and the WP:NPOV policy. I'll be taking them out shortly. Please, read the discussion carefully before reinserting these points.    M   00:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with M that these reinserted statements are best left out. But I still think we must state explicitly that there are other naming conventions that may modify or take precedence over this "rule". We don't want to mislead the people reading this page - it's not enough that we know (or other parties to disputes will know) that other policies exist; we must mention this key information so that all readers understand.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I now think that you may be right - I'd support something like "This does not override [wp:naming convention] standards, such as _ and _". Since nobody is opposing it, you should probably just add it.    M   09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, let's try. (I also made a slight rewording to the clause about rights).--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

" Note that this does not override naming convention standards, such as the use of common names."

I now realize that this specific choice of example might be, uh, problematic. The point of this section is to settle disputes on this issue, and it looks like Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things pretty much hands off judgement to this guideline. Looks like "use common names, if that fails, see naming conflict". So it looks like we don't really need the clause, since namecon asserts no conflicts. It really needs to be worded better though. This may need broader discussion.    M   11:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the original wordings you have deleted. you do not have the right to alter these policies on your own. There is an attempt being made here to subvert the established policy, confusing the issue of self-identifying names with that of common usage of English forms of those names, and usage of terms for non self-identifying bodies. It is denial of use of self-identifying names that is POV, as the guideline states. What we are seeing here seems to be less brevity and cutting out excess wording, but a misjudged attempt to change the policy. Xandar 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do have that right, anyone can edit policy. Incidentally, this page isn't policy. Anyway, read the above discussion. I stated that I think this very clearly overrides common names, and removed the wording that would have changed that. I understand what your general feeling on this issue is, and I'm pretty sure that I agree with you. Let's move on to discussing the specifics - why is "These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity", something that you think belongs as a guideline? Read my objections to it above.    M   00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you on that sentence, but I don't follow your reasoning about this "clearly overriding common names". Surely the fact that Naming Conventions says "if that fails" means that we apply the common name criterion first, and if it isn't clear how to apply that, we look to Naming Conflict for further guidance. In other words, it's common names that override self-identifying names - and as I said before, we should say so here to avoid misleading people. Or if that isn't the case, we should bring it up at the main naming conventions talk page (in fact, I think I will).--Kotniski (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I think the general principle here is that we want to be fair - that is, almost ignorantly equal. A common name having, say, 80% more google hits should not be preferred to a preferred name. Someone can argue that google misrepresents. But nobody can argue that it's not a preferred name.    M   04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading some of the discussion from around July 1, 2005 when this wording was first introduced, it seems very clear to me that use of common names was very important to this policy; this section actually used to be a subsection of How to make a choice among controversial names; which in the 2005 revision states:

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

Anyway, I think that this subsection was intended to flesh out the third point, but it ended up being really muddied. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks a much more logical setup (though I'm not sure what "official name" is supposed to mean, or how the second point relates to naming conventions actually used for science articles these days, which have changed since 2005).--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that shortly after those points in that revision, there's a table that implies that the three have equal weight, and that it's best 2/3.    M  

Kraftlos, the 2005 version of the policy you refer to ALSO contains this text, which people are now trying to delete Types of entities

A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain does not have its own name for itself (obviously). Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one.

A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. The people formerly called Eskimos now call themselves Inuit. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

These statements are important because Kotniski, in particular, seems to be losing track of the important difference between self-identifying and inanimate entities in naming conflicts, and seem to want to apply rules meant for inanimate entities to self-identifying ones. Xandar 10:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, rather than losing track of the difference, I just don't believe this difference is particularly important. Which rules do you think can't be applied to self-identifying entities? (And all this discussion about 2005 texts is rather moot - we should be discussing what best describes current practice, not what a few people came up with four years ago.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, your response came while I was writing the response below. But the difference in the two types of name is referred to below. If we are going by rules applied to inanimate objects then the article currently at Mumbai should be at Bombay and the article currently at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be at Mormon Church. This would cause unending conflict, therefore these rules have been set out, giving us a simple, clean method of short-circuiting that conflict. Having just been involved in 12 months of such conflict, changing this guidance is NOT a good idea. Xandar 10:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that these rules are not followed in all cases. Sometimes the self-identifying name is chosen, sometimes not (as with Burma, and probably Macedonia and Ireland). There are many factors to be considered in choosing titles for articles, and the passage as it stood (and stands) seems to place far too much emphasis on just one.--Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

M, (why the sinister name?), I cannot see the objection to the passages you highlight and want to remove.

• Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Just saying that the guidance exists to remain neutral, is a claim, not a full rationale. The fact that you argue with the guidance using the example of Bombay, actually shows how useful it is. You say "you can't tell me that, no, "mumbai" is actually the correct name. It isn't". This is precisely why this sentence exists. We can argue which is the correct name for months. The sentence makes the principle clear that we use the name actually used by the entity, and short-circuit that fruitless discussion. The change as proposed would reopen the Calcutta, Bombay and Mormon Church naming conflicts - all of which would probably come up on a google search far more under the names I have just listed than by their self-identifying names.

• not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity.

Again this sentence is not asking us to take any position on what is or isn't a key statement of one's own identity. It is saying that we cut through this argument by using the SI name - so avoiding conflict.

• This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

This is the basis of the guidance, giving entities with self-identifying names special consideration. I may prefer to call Gdansk, Danzig, (it's more historical, and a lot easier to pronounce) but to avoid conflict we use Gdansk because that is what the entity currently names itself (for whatever reason)

• Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles

Again this seems quite clear to me. What is the problem? Xandar 10:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Is "These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity." - is this going a bit too far here? I'm under the impression that as far as we're concerned, names are arbitrary, and it doesn't matter one bit whether or not they are "key statements of identity". Other groups make "key statements of non-identity", too. Am I missing something here? What do other editors think about this?    M   12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your impression. Well, I wouldn't say names are arbitrary, but we certainly don't choose them because they are statements of anything. This sort of irrelevant philosophizing has to stay out of the guideline - it just blurs whatever concrete advice we're actually giving.--Kotniski (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the harm in that sentence. Muhammad Ali is in part a statement of identity, as are Mumbai and Gdansk. But I don't see irreparable harm in removing that particular rheoretical justification. Xandar 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take it out. Consider this: should we include the sentence "Objections to a group calling themselves Palestinians are key statements of the opposing side's identity"? It's as true as the statement we have. The statement takes the moral side of the self-namers, all we do is arbitrarily choose them for entirely practical reasons.    M   00:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument that an OBJECTION to someone else using a name has as much validity in identity as the actual USE of a name by a person, is dealt with in the Cabindan-Maputan example. In other words, since the Israelis choose not to primarily self-identify as Palestinians, their objection to Palestinian Arabs using the title is a POV, while the Arabs' use of the title is a Fact. If both Jews and Arabs primarily identified themselves as "Palestinians", then Wikipedia would have to use the name for both, and disambiguate. Xandar 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, their objection is also Fact. If I choose to sanely self-identify as God, the Prophet Mohammed, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, and you don't choose to identify yourself by any of these terms, is my self-identification somehow superior to your refusal to accept me as such? No.
Now, for another part: "Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." -- our article titles don't actually declare what the correct name is. Even if one side was right, morally, that a name should not be used, we wouldn't care.    M   02:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with M. That a group calls itself something is a fact; that another group objects to it calling itself that is also a fact. That it has/hasn't the right to call itself that is a POV; that the other group is right/wrong to object is also a POV. At Wikipedia we should report all the facts (and POVs as attributed opinions); and when choosing names, be as neutral as we can - by choosing the names most commonly used in (good) English. In most cases it will be the self-chosen name anyway, but not always.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not any less neutral to use the name that the self-identifying entity chooses for itself, the guideline does state to cover the naming conflict if it is notable in the article. It would be POV to take sides as to who has the "right" to use that name, but the policy simply gives us a way to avoid discussing subjective arguments of who can/should use a particular name. I don't see what's so hard about that, it's totally neutral. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is mostly about the wording that implied this, which I removed and Xandar replaced. The policy should also be used in conjunction with many other naming policies - if everyone knows some mafia hitman as Mike "Fatts" Smith, it doesn't matter that he sincerely prefers to be called "Little Mikey".    M   20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already pointed out important examples of where the most well known name in English is not the self-identifying name. Altering the guideline would revive all those (and many other) disputes. There is no good reason for doing this, since it would be to perversely replace a simple, easily followed and justifiable set of guidance with a confusing overlap of contradictory principles. (self-identified name Vs "Best known name in English). That would be regression not progress, and a recipe for endless disputes. As far as giving yourself a famous name others think you are not entitled to, we have a key example of this in Madonna and Tom Jones, who are listed under their self-identified names, even though there are other claimants with the same name. As far as the mafia hitman goes, I'm sure if he wanted to be known as Little Mikey, people would call him Little Mikey. Xandar 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This misses the point entirely. Madonna is called Madonna because that's what people call her. Mike, despite self-identifying as 'Little Mikey', is called 'Mike Smith' or 'Fatts' by everyone, and Wikipedia would have a nice article for him over at Mike Smith, not at Little Mikey. So sometimes, we just don't care what you want to call yourself. This isn't the only reason or example, but it's a counterexample that proves that the statement 'self-ident names are above common names' is flatly false. As for the actual page: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." - what is this supposed to mean, and isn't that already covered?    M   02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"I've already pointed out important examples of where the most well known name in English is not the self-identifying name." Yes, so have we - and in some cases the WP article is titled with the self-identifying name, while in others it is titled with the well-known name. There are clearly (at least) two factors at work here - it is simply misleading to imply on this page that the self-identifying name is the one we always choose, while the main WP:NC page (which also has problems) hardly mentions that criterion at all. --Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This guideline exists to supplement WP:NC. It is to help solve problems - which it does by being CLEAR. Kotniski seems to want to make the guidance less clear and more ambiguous. That will help no-one. If there are a few places where the guidance isn't applied (although in the majority of places it is applied very successfully), that doesn't invalidate the guidance. Using made-up examples is not helpful here since there are no parameters to measure. Self-identifying names are generally clear, unambiguous and carry fewer POV connotations. So-called "well-known" names often have none of these advantages. Xandar 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Well-known names are just as likely to be clearer and less ambiguous ("Roman Catholic Church" is certainly less ambiguous than "Catholic Church", for example), and if there is a dispute about the "right to use a name", then choosing the commonly used name certainly seems a more NPOV method than choosing the self-chosen name, which by definition is supporting one of the POVs. And there is certainly nothing CLEAR about laying down a principle on one page which is potentially in conflict with another principle on another page, and not admitting on either page that other principles exist and need to be taken into account simultaneously. If you believe that self-chosen names take precedence over common names, why not try to get that principle accepted at WP:NC? It won't be, of course, so why lie to readers of this page that this principle is somehow paramount? There's no advantage to clarity if what you're saying is wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire naming conventions page needs to be cleaned up. I have no idea why certain sub-pages, like this one, are deferred to when they're just a guideline. All of this needs to be in one place...    M   18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but let's try to make this guideline the best that it can be, given the circumstances. Frankly, this is about a conflict of names; that is, it refers to instances when using the common name doesn't yield a clear distinction between two entities with a claim to the same name, or one entity with more than one apparently viable name. It is not saying "in the case of self-identifying entities, always use the name they call themselves by." rather it is resolving the conflict by bringing in some extra objective criteria to help determine which name is the most common. It doesn't conflict with the common name principle, rather it expands upon and clarifies the idea. The guideline needs work, but I think it is entirely necessary as a support for NPOV and Naming Conventions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue was moved up to WT:Naming conventions.    M   16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental primary principle of our naming conventions is the use of the most common name - WP:NAME starts with a section "Use the most easily recognized name" and the first general convention listed is "Use common names of persons and things".

The sentence "Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name" is not compatible with this general principle. Though these names may coincide with the most common and recognised name, when they do not they must instead defer to the most-common name. Anything saying otherwise (such as this sentence) has no wide consensus, is not supported by our general naming principles, and should be removed unless endorsed by the community in a centralised discussion. Knepflerle (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(To clarify: that self-defined names should be mentioned and explained in the article text is of course natural, and no censorship of this should occur for political reasons. However, use of a self-defining name as the article title is, however, not endorsed over a more commonly used name). Knepflerle (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. And in defiance of long-standing policy. The standing policy defers to this guideline on self-identifying names. One reason is because it is CLEAR. We use the name a person self-identifies by to avoid conflict. Using the "most easily recognised name" is ambiguous in these cases, since which is most "easily recognised" between Catholic Church and Rioman Catholic Church or between Orthodox and Eastern orthodox, or between Latter Day Saints and Mormon? Xandar 23:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Utterly incorrect.

1. it wasn't my opinion - it was direct quotation from the policies.
2. there is no longer standing policy on this matter than WP:NAME.
3. WP:NAME, WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAMES, WP:OFFICIALNAMES are united on promotion of common names over self-identification or officialnes; this is the only document out of step
4. WP:OFFICIALNAMES lists some very good reasons why picking self-identified names does not eradicate all arguments.

Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and this lot are hardly unbiased notification to take part in the debate, are they? Not cool at all.

I have asked one editor with considerable relevant experience to come and give his own opinion. Knepflerle (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And on that cue:

On the procedural point, this page is not policy, and never has been; it's a guideline. WP:NAME says The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use; the added emphasis should make clear that NAME does not "defer" to this page in any way that would make it more than a guideline. Its other reference to this page says that controversial names, once established, should not be changed without discussion, and suggests (correctly) that we have better things to do with Wikipedia than engaging in such discussion - which includes changing to "self-identifying" names.

There is no consensus to always use self-identifying names - or we would not be having this discussion. Is anybody but Xandar defending that position? It is one of the criteria we should consider - and we may vary on how deeply we consider it.

To pick an example apart from current controversies: we use Diggers, Roundhead, Huguenot; the first have several self-identifying names, but even seventeenth century specialists might not recognize them - no one else would have a chance.

The "Cabinda" example I have spoken of at #"pro-life": it's a badly-chosen pseudonym for a Balkan conflict, now settled in a poll approved by ArbCOm, and not under the principle of "self-identification" Therefore this is not descriptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is the guidance that has existed on this page since 2005, and it has been supported on this page. You suddenly dropped into the argument from nowhere and decided to change a long-standing policy that would cause mayhem on WP if reversed. That consensus policy needs widespread CONSENSUS - not two or three people who show up suddenly on a talk page to reverse - as you seem to want to. The attempt to reverse the polcy without notifying ANYONE, and then to transfer the talk elsewhere because you could not gain consensus here is certainly not cool. I have merely informed interested parties you did not bother to inform. Xandar 00:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also WP:NAME refers to this guidance for rational and specifics on naming policy with regard to controversial names. WP:COMMONNAMES does as well, and WP:OFFICIALNAMES is not even Guidance, but an essay. Xandar 00:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no obligation; I'm not Knepferle; I'm his third opinion.
• I have cited, above, everything from this page that WP:NC endorses. Its mandate on controversial names is incompatible with the position Xandar defends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Xandar confused you for Knepferle, I think he was replying to his comments above, not just your's. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to make a few comments on today's discussion, above:

1. Let's not attempt to privilege one editor, over others. I refer to Knepflerle's comment that "this lot are hardly unbiased notification." Xandar contacted me and some others who have just been involved in a protracted dispute over article naming, which I mediated. I do not regard myself as biased on this topic. But I do have some recent experience in interpretation of the Naming convention policy and the Naming conflict guideline.
2. It appears that some editors have been attempting to change the guideline, absent consensus on the talk page. Let's keep in mind the WP guidance for all policies and guidelines, which appears at the top of each: "...Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
3. From reading the above discussion, there seems to be some confusion as to whether there is a need to merely clean up the wording, or change the guideline. There is a big difference. But at least one editor seems to want to throw out the guidance on naming conflicts. Please, let's all bear in mind that the policy specifically refers editors to the guideline for resolution of naming conflicts. This is important. It indicates that when the naming convention (most common name) is disputed, one refers to the guideline and its emphasis on self-identification.

Let's all take it slow. Please stop the reverts. There is no need to rush. Policy decisions are important. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar - so much to correct in what you wrote.

• "The attempt to reverse the polcy without notifying ANYONE, and then to transfer the talk elsewhere because you could not gain consensus here is certainly not cool". I did not move any discussion anywhere. I am not Kotniski, nor am I an "ally" who participated before tonight. I left a short message at WT:NC, but contributed here.
• "I have merely informed interested parties you did not bother to inform." - read WP:CANVAS about campaigning. It was the obvious bias in your notification that was the issue, and took it beyond "mere informing"
• "You suddenly dropped into the argument from nowhere and decided to change a long-standing policy that would cause mayhem on WP if reversed" - the wording as it stood when I edited it was not long-standing. For example, with my emphasis added:

• "Compromise" version "Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name"
• 2005 version "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name"

There is a significant difference between the two: the use in titles does not have consensus since 2005. This was not included in the text back then, precisely because it is incompatible with WP:NC if it is not also the most common name. At least the version at it stands does not promote this falsehood, but it is not completely clear - hence the quotations I added from the relevant policies and guidelines. My edit took the guidance much closer to the 2005 version than the compromise by removing this new non-consensus insertion.

• (from WT:NC) "It was an attempted compromise with M and Kotniski. Since that compromise has been broken by coming here, and completely reversing the policy unilaterally." - I have nothing to do with any compromises between you, those editors or anyone else. Instead of immediate and complete obliteration of my edit using blanket reversion because some "truce" had been broken, examining it would have revealed that my version was much closer to that of the 2005 version (i.e. talking about use in article text), and provided further guidance directly quoted from WP:UE.

Sunray.

• "Xandar contacted me and some others..." - as above; this should have taken the form of a neutral notification. Seeing as you (like the others commenting at WT:NC) appear not to have noticed that my edit took the advice back closer to the 2005 original makes my point about non-neutral campaigning, really.

In summary - guidance on the article text, as per the 2005 version is fine, and you will find that nothing in my edit contradicted this. Anyone want to actually read and comment on the wording I proposed in my edit, this time? Knepflerle (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

However we all got into this discussion, we are here. Let's proceed. Knepflerle, I'm not yet clear on what you are proposing. Perhaps that is my own inability or perhaps it is due to all the crosstalk about process. I'm not clear whether your concerns have to do with language (i.e., grammar) or policy. Would you be willing to spell it out? Sunray (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Though there may or may not be widespread consensus for saying that self-identifying names override common names, the reinstatement of the philosophical talk about rocks and leaves giving themselves names is not appropriate. It should be noted that Xandar (talk · contribs · count) has a clear COI in editing this policy: 489 edits to Catholic Church, 767 to its talk page (61, 37 are the respective counts for the second most edited article/talk). Xandar is the third-most-common editor of that page. Note that forceful editing of a policy to support your view in a discussion is very much against policy, especially if such a conflict of interest is not very clearly disclosed. It's ok to bring up issues, and even change policy to address some current problem that you're having to prompt discussion, but a massive revert is entirely unacceptable.    M   18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)