Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:01, 7 December 2017

Archives

Anglicization

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Use of Palmarès as a heading

I have opened a discussion on whether Palmarès (French for list of achievements or list of winners) should be the standard heading used for a cyclists results. Where can I seek opinions on this? Thanks. Bald Boris 20:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sette note in nero and The Psychic

A discussion regarding the proposed move of Sette note in nero to The Psychic, which is currently active at Talk:Sette note in nero#Requested move 30 January 2017, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La cumparsita or La Cumparsita

A discussion regarding the proposed move of La cumparsita to La Cumparsita, which is currently active at Talk:La cumparsita#Requested move 17 August 2017, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used in English-language sources

Later-added summary: A wording revision has been proposed to the guideline. The table below shows the before and after versions. The question is whether to make this change, or keep the original (or do something else, in theory). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An edit by SMcCandlish incorporated the following change(s) :--

Original version	Proposed change
If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what ~~name is~~ used by non-English sources.	If a particular name is the most widely used in modern English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what names are used by non-English sources.

My red (and italics for those who are colour blind).
I think we need to discuss such a change before implementing it.PBS (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refactored by Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} at 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC) per WP:WRFC[reply]

Comment:-- I am going to look at them backwards because what that goes from my least concern to the most major:

"names are" that is a grammatical change predicated on the first change so we can put that to one side.
"modern" the is a bad idea because there is no definition for modern. You may think that a source from the 1911s is modern another person my think anything only sources in the 2000s are modern. This is not something that should be in this section. If it is a problem, then people will bring it up in discussion that takes place during a requested move, and it may well be that modern depends on the subject of the proposed article title rather than an arbitrary date that covers all subjects. Including "modern" in this section is instruction creep with no real advantage and an the foreseen downside of WP:BEANS for those who are on a mission. Besides it is coved better in the policy section WP:UE, so it does not need to be redefined here.
"the most widely". This is the one I have problems with because it changes the meaning of the section. Let us suppose we have a discussion on an article title and an editor finds just three book that use one title and one other with a different name. Then the former meets your new criteria (it is the most widely used). But it does not meet the current criteria of being established English language name for something, which we decide by surveying usage in reliable English language sources to judge if it is widely used.

-- PBS (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support new (right-hand side) version, as the editor who wrote it. To address PBS's numbered points above, in the same reverse order:

It's a grammatical change that has nothing to do with anything else. It's basic logic: there can be more than one alternative name in other languages. I'm not sure why "~~name is~~" is struck in the copy of the original on the left above; I have objection to "no matter what is used by non-English sources", since it also gets rid of the singular "name" which is incorrect in this context.
Modern is our actual standard, and the purpose of WP guidelines is to record our best practices not try to defy them or make up new ones. This comes up in RMs very, very frequently. If we think we need a definition, then we could theoretically insert one, though this would be rather artificial. In actual practice, we're generally talking about sources from 2000 onward, though this can vary by case (some usages have not changed for longer, others have changed more recently). The default Google News search seems to go back to around 2010, and can be made to go back as far as 2006. Google Ngrams only goes up to 2008.
It makes the meaning of the section agree with the main text of this page, and corrects an obvious logic and interpretation problem. If there are multiple common names in English (e.g. many human-used plant species have a dozen or more regional, vernacular names in English), we should be using the most common one (or something else, like the binomial, if it is actually more common in English RS than any of these vernacular names), per WP:COMMONNAME policy. This guideline cannot magically create an exception to that policy.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC); clarified with a small parenthetical, 15:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish I am not sure why you turned a discussion into a RfC I certainly did not intend it to be one. I thought we could discuss it and see if there is a common agreement. Only then, it there is no agreement, do I think it appropriate to hold an RfC. To address you points:

It is struck out because you changed the wording. We agree it is a grammatical change as I said initially "predicated on the first change so we can put that to one side."
I stand by what I said before it is in the Policy so it does not need to be addressed here.
"and corrects an obvious logic and interpretation problem". This is a section in "Naming conventions (use English)", and this section has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME, but is to clarity that we use a foreign name if there is no established English language name. Please read my example that start ""the most widely". ... Let us suppose..." and explain why you think your wording is better for this specific section, as this is the nub of the problem -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@user:SMcCandlish Can we please discuss (3). I would really like you to explain why you think this section is about WP:UCRN and do not think that this section is about "no established English language name" [so use the common foreign name instead]. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was not about "no established English-language name". It just also cannot be an anti-WP:UCRN provision, a guideline trying to trump a policy (even inadvertently, through poor wording). I'm completely mystified by your resistance to the tweak I made. I cannot see a clear rationale against it, and what you've provided as a rationale I've already responded to. So, this is turning circular and I'd rather let other editors provide their input. PS: I've re-read your original point #3 above, about half a dozen times, and still do not see what you're getting at. The proviso at the end is about the majority of sources. In one-editor research seems to show what the majority are doing. But it's so few sources we wouldn't use it for COMMONNAME purposes or USEENGLISH ones, anyway. We'd need more sources for either determination. PS: Why RfC? Because changes anyone things are substantive do not appear to "stick" in WP:P&G pages these days unless there's an RfC behind them. It's unfortunate that WP has turned this bureaucratic in the last few years, but likely an organizational life-cycle matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC); extended 15:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical matter about RfC formatting resolved.

Comment Please arrange for the RfC format to be fixed. It goes against WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief in at least two ways: first, the opening statement (the portion between the {{rfc}} template and the first timestamp) includes a table - this is forbidden as it breaks the listing entry (have a look at how the RfC appears at WP:RFC/STYLE, Permalink); second, the opening statement is not neutral because it starts of with a person-to-person remark; third, it's not exactly brief either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It's someone reverting me, and I don't mind the phrasing. The question is simple enough: use the left version or the right version (or propose your own). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The continued presence of a table means that the entry at WP:RFC/STYLE is still broken. Please either: put a timestamp (either bare, or as part of a signature) before the table; or reformat the opening statement so that no table is used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the RfC listing entry is now worse (permalink). Although the table is now gone, and all format breakage has vanished, there is no meaningful statement at all. It is certainly brief; its neutrality is questionable; but it tells us nothing about the problem. Please fix, or terminate this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS:--To oppose an RFC in itself, you may choose to register an oppose comment with additional notes.Edits like this tampering with the RFC statement, aren't expected from someone with a mop.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the history of the section. I did not tamper with the RFC statement — there was none — and as my first posting to this section broke the RfC template when it was retrospectively added (see the comments by Redrose64), the second posting fixed the problem. The second posting that you called "tampering with the RFC statement" was nothing of the sort, because both were my postings I did not tamper with another's editors RfC posting. Now that has been pointed out you I hope you will strike out your false allegations. -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  And see WP:RFC: It's actually permissible to change RfC statement, not least by inserting a more neutral restatement of the question under a non-neutral one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Disregarding how this RfC has appeared on this page, it has gone through the following versions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming:
  21:01, 13 October 2017 - note that it stops abruptly after an opening brace, this was because of the pipe immediately following that brace, to start a table
  
  05:01, 14 October 2017 - no visible change, because the actual change was later in the text than that table start
  
  14:01, 15 October 2017 - has now become a meaningless RfC
  
  There have been no subsequent changes to the RfC listing entry, but as things stand, it will change again at 15:01 (UTC) today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @PBS:--I hope that Redrose's comment makes the thing(s) a bit clearer.Whilst, obviously that wasn't your intention(s), the diff. I linked to, certainly had the ill-effect of turning the displayed portion of the RFC poser into n entirely meaningless thing at the listing page.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  And there you are: 15:01, 7 November 2017 shows that it stops abruptly again. I will once again point out the sentence at WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief: "for technical reasons, statements may not contain tables". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  So just add a non-table, neutral question as the intro, at the top. WP:JUSTFIXIT. Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Eh...Failed to execute the cut-paste of the table properly :(Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS and SMcCandlish::--I have temporally removed the RFC tag and would like to see both of you to continue in some two-way disc. to check whether this can be resoved more easily.If not, we can surely open an RFC with a neutral statement.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you "dis-RfCing" this. The question is quite clear: Use the version on the left or on the right (or propose your own). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SMcCandlish::--Thank you!That you feel there is no point in back-and-forth, it would be much-prudential to seek the opinions of the broader community!Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I cannot see a clear rationale against it," see my point (3.) at the start of this thread. Two sources against one makes the name used in those two "the most widely used", but it does not make that the name used by those two sources "widely used in English-language sources". However if there are 100 books split any which way between two names (even 51/49) that indicates that the name is "widely used in English-language sources" —- ie its a standard WP:COMMONNAME, English only sources. -- PBS (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Support: it is a perfectly sensible alteration. I am not entirely sure how this could be controversial, or how it has ended up as an RfC. –Sb 2001 00:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sb2001 How is it a sensible alteration? If editors find three English language sources that use two names, one of which is therefore "the most widely use", but is is not "widely used in English-language sources". Are you really supporting a change of meaning to one that says ignore usage in foreign sources if just two English language sources use a name? I would argue that in such cases there is no established use in English language sources so use foreign sources instead. Let us now suppose that four books have been found two for one name two for the other. There is now no name "most widely used in modern English-language sources" so do we treat that differently from three sources? -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I, too, am bothered by the lack of definition (or even a guideline) of what's considered "modern" and especially "the most widely used", but also by the fact that since Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, there are bound to be topics for which "modern" sources (whatever the definition) would simply be non-existent, in which case if the subject area falls outside the Anglosphere, do we really want to go with the non-English conventions just because existing English sources did not keep up? Not to mention the fact that the standards of "modern" would be different for different topics, which makes the addition quite pointless. If a criterion is going to be negotiated separately in each individual debate, why even mention it in a general guideline?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2017; 14:18 (UTC)
Oppose. Why change if editors even ignore the simpler old rule and remove evidence [1] for English language usage? 77.180.0.106 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manga and Anime

What about official English names for characters in anime? I got this project page from the Dance with Devils <!--> about Loewen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbyAndTheRockets07 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 == Used in English-language sources ==
-{{Rfc|style|rfcid=9D7AA7D}}
 Later-added summary: A wording revision has been proposed to the guideline. The table below shows the before and after versions. The question is whether to make this change, or keep the original (or do something else, in theory). <!--Summary added to stop the RfC system from choking on the table --> <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)