Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Links to COMMONNAME section

Should WP:COMMONNAME and similar ones directly link to the article section ("Use commonly recognizable names")? Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Um... the shortcut WP:COMMONNAME already does link directly to the article section in question. Or did you mean to ask: "Should WP:COMMONNAME continue to link directly to the section?" My answer to that would be, "yes". Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The links got broken with the change in section title. I changed the redirects to point to the section under its new name. Plantdrew (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Deadmaus/5 discussion

Check out Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_2. Super interesting; doesn't this seem like a logical exception to our trademark policy? Should we rewrite to account for cases where the non-standard-english spelling (Deadmau5) is by far the dominant spelling? Red Slash 09:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No - we don't follow vanity spellings to keep the fans happy - see also Se7en, etc., etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
And as mentioned at the Deadmaus talk, Seven was moved because that name appeared so much in reliable sources... of course, it's mostly because the theatrical posters and official DVDs have "Seven" displayed quite clearly. But here we have a number of sources that use "deadmau5", and it's quite clearly the official term.
Speaking of reliable sources... as they are considered reliable, they are free to ignore basic fact-checking and fabricate any name they please; as they are considered reliable, no one questions them of otherwise, even when errors are brought to light. Yes, the quantity of reliable sources is considered important in this regard. If there are more reliable sources that say one thing, it is generally accepted that we do that one thing. Combine these two things and you get the problem with swearing by all of these reliable sources so easily.
...Oh look, yet another Kotaku article with a clear error, and it even has a link at the end that uses "deadmau5". It's quite obvious what they're doing is intentional. I'm really tempted to open a discussion on them for this alone. Despatche (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wonderful (sigh)... yet another conflict of interpretation between MOS guidance and this Policy. This is a perfect example of where WP:COMMONNAME does apply to "styling". This is not just a "vanity" spelling/styling used by fans... The vast majority of non-fan media and industry sources use "Deadmau5" as well. More importantly they use it consistently (ie the don't spell it "Deadmau5" at the top of the page, and then switch to "Deadmous" in the body of their text) ... nor is it a "logo" issue (it's not like the "BEATLES" logo that appeared on Ringo's drums, but not in sources). Deadmau5 is by far the most recognizable (ie common) name. "Deadmau5" is how people are going to search for this topic, and it is the title that they are going to expect to find the topic under.
MOS guidance is good advice... but it should not be applied as a "one-size-fits-all", always to be followed rule ... it has to be applied on a case-by-case basis, with the acknowledgment that there are going to be exceptions. This is one of them. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
When there does exist an official alternate name over the more common/better recognized but otherwise difficult to write promotional name (Seven vs Se7en, Deadmaus vs Deadmau5) we should use the one that makes it as easy as possible for an English reader to read the text, including the article title - in general that being the alternate name. "Deadmau5", if used out of context, seems unpronouncable, but "Deadmaus" is straight forward. We of course should state upfront these more official names but our writing style needs to be geared towards comprehension over being exact, if being exact is going to lead to confusion. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) And how is Deadmau5 any different from a name with a diacritic in it? Look at Bjursås... your average English speaker will have no idea how that name is supposed to be pronounced. Thankfully, it is explained in the very first sentence of the article so ignoramuses who are not familiar with Swedish (like me) can figure it out. We can do the same with Deadmau5.
You may be different, but I don't find Deadmau5 that hard to understand, read or pronounce (I had never heard of him before this discussion... and yet it took me only a few seconds to see that it was a play on lettering, and how to pronounce it.) I certainly find Deadmau5 is much easier to understand, read and pronounce than most diacritic-ed names.
(Hell... you don't need diacritics... consider Llanfairpwllgwyngyll... your average English speaking reader isn't going to have a clue on that one) Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and personally, I fully endorse Andy Dingley's comment in that second move request. If we're going to behave in a stupid fashion, then lets just go full out. Resolute 14:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The relevant discussion is now at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 June. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Brown title discussion

This discussion may be of interest to this page. Talk:Sarah_Brown_(wife_of_Gordon_Brown)#Requested_move_6_.28June_2013.29, as it looks at the question of when should WP:COMMONNAME be used, if the result is offensive to some? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Names of articles relating to districts and wards of Tanzania

There is an ongoing discussion of the names of articles relating to the districts and wards of Tanzania. Those are political subdivisions of the country below the region level. The options essentially boil down to, for example, "Rombo", "Rombo district", "Rombo district of Tanzania", or "Rombo district (Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania)". Please comment as you feel apppropriate at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rombo Thanks. AfricaTanz (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: WP:AURDNAME as a guideline

I would like to invite the editors here to comment on a proposal to promote WP:AURDNAME (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) to guideline status. Please visit the WP:AURDNAME talkpage and discuss.

-- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

for those of us not familiar with AURDNAME: WP:AURDNAME is a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions on examples listed

The section of "Use commonly recognizable names" give a list of examples of article titles. These examples should be edited to included further explanation. What i mean is every example should state what this name is choose over. For example it should say;

  • Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton; common name over birth name)
  • Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus; common name over scientific name)

Also, the list should include one example of exclusion of WP:HONORIFIC's case. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of Deadmaus

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. This discussion is relevant to this page as part of it hinges on a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:TM. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What if there is no common name?

Does this policy provide any guidance for situations where there is no common name? For example, let's say that 50% of reliable sources use name A and 50% use name B. Disputes over whether to use A or B can last forever (or at least it seems like it!). I took a quick skim and I don't see this covered, but perhaps I missed it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 June 2013

Yes, this is covered in the policy. Specifically, the text says, "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above." —Psychonaut (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
What happens when two names are equally recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines do not appear to address such an exceedingly rare case, and I think it's unlikely that you would be able to actually establish consensus that the two names are equal on all five dimensions. Is this a hypothetical scenario or can you actually point to a particular dispute where all the parties agree that the two names are equally recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I know the article the OP is talking about, and believe me, the logjam does exist. - X201 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Sega Genesis war? For those kinds of things, I would favor a sort of randomized rule - if there is really no consensus on COMMONNAME, and all are equally precise/concise/natural/etc, then you roll the dice. Each title gets its day in the sun for 1 year, after which, you alternate. It's used as one solution to Buridan's_ass type problems in computer science - if either of two options is equally good, just choose a random one. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That solution is covered in #11 of the FAQ.

11. Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles?

This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including:

Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing;

This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx 16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.)

But to characterize the discussion at that article as a "war" is a bit of an overstatement. Those in favor of changing it are a small minority; it has been repeatedly shown that consensus supports the current title, and that there is certainly no consensus to change it. --B2C 22:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, describing it as a war is the correct terminology. The side that wanted the current name, battered away until they got their victory, then the roles reversed and now the other side want the previous stable name back. Both sides are entrenched, and throw all sorts of things into the debate to prove that their cause it correct and they reject/ignore all forms of compromise. It is purely a tussle between two groups (The North Americans who want the name that they knew the console by, and everyone else who want the original name). As I proposed in the recent discussion, the only way to stop the war is to make both sides lose, by using an alternative name or similar solution.
As regards a tie breaker for manufactured products (not just video game consoles), Wikipedia needs a clear rule like "Use original first name." or "Use a one country one vote system to count the number of countries if was released in, and use the most popular" or "Use officially published sales figures" or "Use the earliest release date", it needs something better than ropey numbers of Google hits and word counts in Scholar searches, which are all open to swaying the numbers and no one will ever check them for quality. Wikipedia needs a better way to solve things like this. Addition: Obi Wan Konobi's alternating and random suggestions above are good as well. - X201 (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Common names aren't always the best solution for naming things. Perhaps a gaming console topic wide naming convention can be established. I'm active in roads articles, where the official name, or official route is often preferred over a local name. See WP:AURDNAME and WP:USSH for two different roads-related approaches to this. -- Nbound (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea behind that. - X201 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of Lì (chinese surname)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lì (chinese surname)#Requested move. This discussion is relevant to the WP:UE section of this page as editors wish to re-introduce Chinese characters to the disambiguation parameter. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Could use some more eyes on this one... --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogurt Rule

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule for a discussion on a page that purports to be a supplemental essay to this policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The inappropriate reference to the supplemental template has been removed[1]. --B2C 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Names of counties of Texas

Why do the article names for counties of Texas follow this format: "Bexar county, Texas"? Shouldn't it be just "Bexar county"? AfricaTanz (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be another Bexar County, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I'd say so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
See WP:USPLACE. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
That's merely a guideline developed by consensus, which would allow any Wikipedia project to do the same, i.e., adopt an unusual article naming convention. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe virtually all United States counties are so named (County, State). Omnedon (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. And the consensus (or more accurately, the lack of consensus to change or remove the guideline) has been repeatedly established with pretty wide participation beyond any single Wikipedia project. older ≠ wiser 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
See the WP:CRITERIA section of the WP:AT policy... where it talks about consistency being a key principle. A majority of place names in the US are duplicated over more than one State (thus requiring the State name to be added to the article title as a form of disambiguation). Because this is so prevalent, it becomes more consistent to include the State name in our title, even when not needed. Your typical Wikipedia reader (ie our audience) has come to expect the title of articles on US places to include the name of the State. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
That consistency principle is not followed for articles relating to other countries. Why is the USA a special case? AfricaTanz (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
They are a special case because of the amount of duplication in place names between States. That isn't something other nations have to deal with as much. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they are the ones who should join the US's method instead of the other way around. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to convince some peope of that right now but getting nowhere. They prefer "Rombo" to "Rombo district, Tanzania" or the equivalent. They argue that the latter is too complex. I think the former is user unfriendly, especially because it is a Kiswahili word. I think people don't like my proposal because it's coming from me. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be good in so many ways. However many editors like to see articles at the primary name and don't agree with including more information in the article name, even if the vast majority of readers have no idea what the title is about (Rombo anyone?). One main argument is consistency. Yet, fully disambiguation place names produce the most consistency with the fewest exceptions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the Rombo a ballroom dancing style? That's what many people will think. But who cares about them.... Two additional words in the article title would hurt nobody except those obsessed with questionable rules and who have never heard of WP:IAR. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE appears to fall foul of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but I assume that it would be fruitless to try to change it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I always thought WP:USPLACE applied to cities (or as it says there, settlements). It's pretty well established, through multiple discussions, that US cities are titled Cityname, Statename regardless of whether the city name is unique. This is not just because the US is a big country; it is because Americans virtually always say the names of cities this way; it is the WP:COMMONNAME for US cities. And there are enough people who feel passionately about this that it will not change - not for cities. IMO there is no similar reason for counties to be named this way (and Omnedon is correct; all US counties are currently titled Countyname, Statename). But counties are not "settlements", to which USPLACE applies, and it is not customary to Americans to say the names of counties in this way. As far as I am concerned USPLACE applies to cities, not counties, and I would have no problem with renaming all unique county names to drop the state name - so that well known counties like Los Angeles County as well as lesser known ones like Stanislaus County or Placer County stand alone. (No doubt this opinion surprises the people with whom I have passionately contended about keeping USPLACE for cities - but it shouldn't. In fact I have often teased those people, asking them why they don't go after the county names if they are so committed to eliminating "unnecessary disambiguation", but they never responded.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Again... the issue here is how much weight to give the principle of Consistency, and how best to apply it. There are a lot US Counties names that are used in multiple states (Take a look at Essex County as a good example)... the articles on these counties need to have the State name attached to the title for disambiguation purposes. Of course, there are also many articles on counties that do not need this disambiguation (if the county has a unique name). When assessing for consistency, we have to compare the relative size of each group. If the number of articles that do need disambiguation overwhelms the number that don't need disambiguation, then we can say: "Adding the State name to all the titles (even when not needed) makes the titles more consistent." Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd bet there is no data already existing about how many county names need disambiguation versus how many do not. AfricaTanz (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
For counties beginning with A, 11 need disambiguation out of 84. That's 13 percent. That does not argue for putting the state in every county name. AfricaTanz (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
For counties in California (which may not be typical), 9 out of 58 need disambiguation, or 15%. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In California, it does appear that many of the counties have unique names. Not surprisingly, many of them have a Spanish origin, which will not be at all common in many other states. In my experience, some states were more original than others in applying names to counties, cities, townships, et cetera, perhaps for a variety of reasons. California's history and proximity to Mexico probably had big influences on their naming choices. Omnedon (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe I can gen that up with a script I wrote to aid with township disambiguation. It could easily be modified for counties and uses census data. I will try to do that this weekend. For the record, I entirely agree with Blueboar's statement about consistency. Omnedon (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Even given those numbers, consistency is an important issue. With such a large group of articles, I feel it would be confusing and counterproductive to name some articles in one way (County, State) and others in another way (County). I don't see how this would help either the reader or the editor. Omnedon (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on a check of California's 58 counties, it appears that all the uniquely-named counties already have a redirect page under the county name alone. Just FYI. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
If 13 percent is beyond your threshhold, what exactly is your threshhold? AfricaTanz (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how did you produce a list of U.S. counties starting with "A"? older ≠ wiser 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Index of U.S. counties. AfricaTanz (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. It can't be relied on for a comprehensive evaluation of ambiguity though. It omits historical counties as well as non-U.S. counties. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but what we're talking about here are U.S. counties, I think. AfricaTanz (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the need for disambiguating U.S. counties is not limited to U.S. counties. That is, there might be only one U.S. county with a particular name, but there may be a county in another country with the same name. For example Antrim County. older ≠ wiser 14:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering this, too. If you counted 11 of 84 names that need disambiguation, that means that more than 13 percent of counties starting with "A" have the same name, since more than 11 counties have the 11 names. AgnosticAphid talk 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I would say the threshold would be higher than 13%... but I suspect that if you did a complete survey you would find it higher. A look at two other States shows a higher percentage...
For New York... 41 out of 62 counties (66%) need disambiguation.
For Ohio... 64 out of 88 counties (73%) need disambiguation.
It would be interesting to find out which State has the largest number counties who's names need disambituation. A lot of the duplication seems to be repeated use of the names of Founding Fathers and Revolutionary War heroes, with the names of various American Indian tribes running a close third. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have downloaded the USGS data for the nation and put it into SQL. Of the 3036 entries in the database with a class of "Civil" and a name ending with " County", there are 425 names that are used at least twice. Just for fun, here are the top five:

Lincoln County: 23
Jackson County: 23
Franklin County: 24
Jefferson County: 25
Washington County: 30

A total of 1692 counties, or about 56%, would require disambiguation. Omnedon (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Separately from these statistics, I would also argue that since a county is a subdivision of a state, its official name would be (to take the initial example) "Bexar County, Texas". Yes, technically this concept could be extended to the nation, planet, solar system, et cetera -- but the existence of a county depends on the existence of a state, and counties are frequently referred to with the "County, State" form. In addition, including the name of the state better satisfies the titling requirement of conciseness, since a concise name is both short and descriptive (not just short). There are 50 states and thousands of counties, so it's not concise to simply say "Bexar County" in the context of an encyclopedia. Omnedon (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just do not believe your 56 percent figure. For counties beginning with A and B, the statistic is nowhere close to even 25 percent. Counties, cities, etc. are all creatures of a legislative body. Why counties should be uniquely treated is very weird. Aside from that, the official name of Bexar County is just that - not Bexar County, Texas - regardless of what a county owned website might say. Of course it is more concise to say Bexar County than the alternative. One word shorter. 33 percent more concise. AfricaTanz (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
So, you believe I am lying? Blueboar has already stated that it is 73% in Ohio. Counties are not uniquely treated -- cities are treated the same way with the exception of those on the AP list, per WP:USPLACE. How do you conclude that the official name is Bexar County? And the definition of the word "concise" is not simply "shortest". A concise name is brief and comprehensive. It conveys much in few words. "Bexar County" conveys little by itself. Merely adding the state conveys much more. Omnedon (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Further, here are the top 10 most-duplicated county names in the US:
  1. Marion County - 17
  2. Monroe County - 17
  3. Montgomery County - 18
  4. Clay County - 18
  5. Madison County - 19
  6. Jackson County - 23
  7. Lincoln County - 23
  8. Franklin County - 24
  9. Jefferson County - 25
  10. Washington County - 30
This adds up to 214. That's more than 7% of the total number of counties in the United States right there. Some names are used much less frequently: of the 425 total duplicated names, 241 are used only twice. But that's still 482 articles that require disambiguation, or nearly 16%. It all adds up. Omnedon (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Something else to keep in mind... The need to disambiguate is not limited to repetition between US States... We have to check internationally as well... for example, while there is currently only one "Ontario County" in the United States (Ontario County, New York} there is another in Canada (Ontario County, Ontario). Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Another example: Although there is only one Loudoun County and only one Loudon County, I imagine that many users looking for one of these articles appreciate the fact that the article titles clearly identify the state, so they don't have to visit the article to tell which spelling is the correct one for the county they are looking for. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your 25% figure from above overlook the fact that you counted the numbers wrong, as I pointed out. You seem to have counted the number of names that are duplicated, but the relevant question is the number of counties with those duplicative names instead. There's 12 Adams County-s alone, so clearly more than 13% of A counties have the same name as another county. AgnosticAphid talk 20:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

County names continued

We are getting a bit off track... I don't think anyone is saying that we should not disambiguate those counties that need disambiguation... the question here is whether it is helpful or harmful to add the state names to those counties that don't need disambiguation. That's where issues like consistency and precision comes into play. Given the high number of counties that do need disambiguation, does it become more consistent and more precise to always add the state ... even to those counties that don't need it? I certainly think so. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Otherwise I feel it would be confusing for both readers and editors to have, essentially, two different naming standards within a group of thousands of articles. In very rough terms, it would be half and half. Applying the same convention to all articles makes it very easy and consistent, and it is also common usage. Omnedon (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
There will be non confusion. It's not two different naming standards. It's one naming standard (use the shortest non-ambiguous common name) and one disambiguation method when needed (append state name when ambiguous). This method is used throughout most of Wikipedia with the glaring exception of U.S. place names (except neighborhoods of incorporated places which do not have a Wikipedia-wide standard it seems). --Polaron | Talk 18:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
One name would be required for some counties, another for other counties, and there would be 1600+ of one and 1300+ of another. It's much easier in this situation to use the "County, State" for all of them, so that the name is always predictable. Omnedon (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed: given that so many would have to include the state regardless, it's reasonable to simply always include state. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the original reason for the format the way it is is because why back when, many of the American place name articles and their titles were generated by a bot, so it became the de facto standard for American place names. This suited the rest of the project for cultural reasons. Americans often add a location to a place name. This is seen and heard in Hollywood movies: for example when the hero arrives in London and the screen shows Big Ben, a black taxi, a red double decker bus, and, in case anyone does not recognise those icons, text that reads "London, England". Other dialects of English do not usual do this as standard, the default name is the commonly used name in that dialect (so I think "national varieties of English" also has to be considered along with consistency as altering the Wikipedia customary naming of American counties is likely to have an impact on other parts of the project). -- PBS (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You seriously believe that a few unnamed Hollywood movies is evidence of American culture? That's ridiculous, as is what bots allegedly did 15 years ago. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I would guess from your reply that you have nor read How to Win Friends and Influence People. Are you familiar with the diplomatic term "facts on the ground" or the old British marching song "We're Here Because We're Here because We're here". Decisions made in the past affect current Wikipedia policy and guidelines. For example if the decision had been made back at the start of the project to use official names, then that would probably be what was used today. If it had been decided to place biographies under "surname, given names" (as they are in categories and many other reference works) that is probably what would be used today. As to American culture, I used the cinema example as that is widely known for people who do not know any Americans (I assume most Americans know other Americans), are you arguing that it is uncommon for Americans to qualify names in that way? -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that PBS is right on target with his comment on usage. As a natural born USA-American, I can confirm that the movies have it right. My fellow Americans generally use the city-plus-state (or county-plus-state) locution (e.g., "Louisville, Kentucky") when referring to places that aren't close by and aren't universally recognized. In contrast, I have observed that acquaintances from the UK almost always give just the city name when referring to their home cities -- even when far from home. [This can have amusing results when they are speaking with Americans who hear (for example) "Manchester" or "Birmingham" and interpret the name to mean (for example) Manchester, New Hampshire, or Birmingham, Alabama.] --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
In most cases names are unambiguous if you are using them in the sphere where your usage is known and understood. Once you leave that sphere and the term can become ambiguous. For a world wide encyclopedia, we should strive to avoid the unambiguous names. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Bear in mind that movies that show locations are supposed to convey the actual location. Encyclopedia titles have no such requirement. Context is the function of the first sentence of an article, not its title. --Polaron | Talk 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the consistency component of wp:at is really quite beneficial when it comes to counties, Louisianan parishes, Alaskan boroughs or census areas, and cities (with the exception in wp:usplace of major metropolitan cities listed in the AP Stylebook). Having a hodgepodge of over 3,100 articles with the only consistency among their titles being determined based on whether they are random enough would seem to be a big step backwards. user:j (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Somehow, the consistently inconsistent has devolved into a virtue. The policy is to DB article names only when necessary, which leaves a hodgepodge of article titles for most geographical areas except for the only remaining superpower. But that's perfectly fine, right? Because the USA is the USA and Hollywood movies sometimes put text like "London, England" on the screen. This whole thing is absurd. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I presume you now accept that over half of the US county articles must be disambiguated anyway, right? Can you point to a similar situation in other nations? Omnedon (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Your presumption is incorrect. What other nations need is irrelevant. AfricaTanz (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying you still believe I have presented incorrect figures? If so, please do the analysis yourself and let us know what you find. Omnedon (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Stick with WP:USPLACE, for towns, counties and cities (all official place names). Neighborhoods, census designations, statistical locations, and localities simply use the simplest disambiguation. Apteva (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What does policy mean by “spelling”?

Where WP:TITLETM says to use standard formatting “unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage” (emphasis added), does this apply solely to letter spelling, or does it also apply to unusual punctuation and other non-alphabetic characters? Or is it open to interpretation? —Frungi (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

For further info, as it says, see MOS:TM. This section has been unchanged, or nearly so, since it came in via a merge in Oct. 2009, in this edit. Before that, it's harder to trace to see how it evolved to the way it is. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It was pretty much the same in the original draft of that merge, but reading the page history and discussion I can't figure out where this was merged from. In any case, it said "Rationale and specifics: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)" from the start. At that time, the MOS:TM page had no mention of "spelling". Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be more concerned about where "demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark" came from. That's never been part of MOS:TM. It looks like Kotniski make it up when he made this section, and nobody has ever really looked at it. I don't think it represents typical practice, since we pretty much always use an English-like rendering of trademarks even when weirdly stylized ones are in common use (k.d. lang being the rare exception to MOS:TM that corresponds more to the current wording here). Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the history. Too bad it doesn’t really give any insight on what exactly was meant by the word. And that’s an interesting point about the “common usage” bit; do you think there’d be much resistance to a proposal to remove it? I mean, if it doesn’t reflect actual practice, it doesn’t belong, right? —Frungi (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sunn band's naming

Sunn (band) → Sunn O))) may be of interest to you, considering it revolves around several issues on policies and guidelines. See talk:Sunn (band)#Requested move 2 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Deadmau5 in WP:COMMONNAME?

Considering the facts that (1) the Deadmau5/deadmaus debate ended in the decision that Deadmau5 is correct, and (2) because that decision hinged on the WP:COMMONNAME policy, and (3) because this decision is and already has been used as a rationale for changing the titles of other pages, such as Tech N9ne, which was recently moved from "Tech Nine", might it be a good idea to add "Deadmau5, not Deadmaus" to the examples in the WP:COMMONNAME policy? I think it would be very helpful to editors.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a controversial addition to policy, and, actually goes against most of the guidelines. It is more of a common sense exception than the rule. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

most commonly recognised. Preferred, not Must

I would like to clarify "most commonly recognised". In places, over the years, editors have often asserted that policy is that the title must be the most commonly used title. I think that has always been a mistake. While policy has been, and states, that the most commonly recognised title is preferred, that is soft language. The hard language, which I don't seem able to find, is that the article must be a commonly recognised name, for the topic.

Of course, for many ambiguous subjects, the most commonly recognized name may be claimed by different topics, if we allow for separate audiences for separate topics. The policy preference sometimes can't be maintained, but alternative (disambiguated) titles must still be commonly recognizable.

Does everyone agree with this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So it must be a commonly recognized name, not necessarily the most commonly recognized (though this is often preferable). No objections from me. (Full disclosure: I’m currently involved in a move debate that a change to this policy could affect, but I don’t believe it’s affecting my opinion here.) —Frungi (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I would oppose this since it would go against naturalness and recognizability. Besides the exceptions that are mentioned in the section it seems best to use the most commonly used name since that is an objective way to determine the article title. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." But that preference in support of the recognizability criterion has to be considered and weighed against the other criteria. It's not a "must". Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

[I]t seems best to use the most commonly used name since that is an objective way to determine the article title. Really? Most commonly used where? In books that Google has so far digitized? On the web (where a title previously used in Wikipedia will have been replicated multiple times)? In the sources used for the article? In the most reliable sources? Only in non-specialist sources? If there is one, in the English-speaking country to which the article most relates? If there is no such country, in the US, since the majority of native English speakers live there? In publications by international bodies? There's no "objective" way to determine what is the most commonly used name in those cases where different names are used in different kinds of source. Many of the most intractable arguments are precisely about what kind of source should count (e.g. the argument about capitalizing the English names of birds).
More generally, this view is part of a general desire on the part of some editors, sincere and understandable but mistaken, to remove the need for consensus among article editors and replace it with fixed rules. It doesn't work, and attempts to do so just create rancour and drive editors away. WP:AT requires editors to balance a number of excellent principles; where the answer using different principles is different, such balancing can only be achieved by discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Peter coxhead you ask "Most commonly used where?" but that is answered by "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". The rest is detail better handled in other sections or in the naming conventions. For example your question "Only in non-specialist sources?" that has to be weighed by "Deciding on an article title" under Recognizability – "... someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize". -- PBS (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course what you write is correct. But my comments were directed at the idea that there is an objective test. There is not. There are rules of thumb for what is a "reliable" source, but it has to be judged by the topic. The phrase "familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in" has to be worked out in specific cases – it has very different meanings for an article about a pop singer and an article about quantum physics. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best to specify that the reliable sources have to be reliable for information about the topic, not just generally reliable. I would also very much like the policy to say explicitly that simple quantitative considerations (e.g. ngrams or google hit searches) should be avoided, or at least treated with skepticism. For example sometimes we have entities that used to be called one thing but now no-longer is called that in reliable sources, but the older usage persists for example in placenames and literary works named after the older usage, but which do not in fact constitute reliable sources for the topic, although they are reliable for their own usage. These sources that are then not about the topic being discussed will boost the older usage in quantitative measurements, skewing the results.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I think we should have some specific examples, and perhaps a template. We could create something that would generate Google scholar, book, news searches, ngrams, etc, for comparison purposes. In some cases, one COMMONNAME will dominate across all of these platforms (Deadmau5 was a great example of this), while sometimes it is contested (such as Cote d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast) - on that, it depends on which sources you use - African news sources? Encyclopedias? CIA World Fact Book? NY Times? BBC? etc. In such cases, where different sectors have different rankings of commonname, then it should probably be dropped, and other criteria used to determine the best name. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME needs copy-editing.

WP:COMMONNAME has been tweaked quite a bit lately. I am sure this is all a result of properly discussed and well thought-out consensus decisions. But it has left WP:COMMONNAME somewhat battered and quite hard to read. It really needs to be made into prose again, rather than a collection of loosely connected clauses that it has become now. One idea might be to first have paragraph explaining the basic idea of what COMMONNAME is, and afterwards another explaining the exceptions to it. This might also avoid some of all the repetitions that the policy text has now.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you try out any changed wording here first. The tweaks are the result of some discussions and consensus-building; it's important that the meaning isn't changed in the course of "copy-editing". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I would be opposed to any change in meaning of the following sentences: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." I do not think that the meaning of those sentences should be changed since they support the characteristics of naturalness and recognizability. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at WP:COMMONNAME, contemplating copy-editing by paragraph (P) and sentence (S):
P1.

S1. Information of no take away value?
S2. A topic may have multiple viable titling options.
S3 . “Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)” This simplifies without loss to “Wikipedia prefers the name that is most prevalent in reliable English-language sources”
“as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural” A rationale for the previous. Rationales for policy go in supporting essays.
S4. A self-reference. No information value.

I suggest reducing paragraph 1 to its current actual information content: “For an article title, Wikipedia prefers the name that is most prevalent in reliable English-language sources”

P2

S1. “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title” An “official” name is not necessary the best article title. Will be repeated at P3 S6. It then restates P1.
S2 The sources used to count usage must include the references sources. Implies that unused source may also contribute.
S3. Prefer new names over previous names (doesn’t apply to dead royal consorts?)
S4. Pointer to “National varieties of English” which will then point to the MOS

A weak paragraph high in redundancy. S1 is better stated by P3 S6 & P1. S3 requires the guidelines for any actual help. S4 is a pointer without unique information.
I suggest Rebuilding P2 from S2 and and P3 S7.

P3.

S1 See preceding section, Recognizability.Naturalness Precision.Conciseness.Consistency.
S2 Avoid ambiguity and inaccuracy.
S3 Avoid non-neutral; see next section
S4 You may weigh how common against problems.
S5 Avoid vulgar and pedantic
S6 Fine sentence, might be better reversed.
S7 Check other encyclopedias

While a good paragraph, consider the following: Group the three “avoid” sentences. Reverse S6 ("the preferred name may or may not be an official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names") and move it to P1. Move S7 into P2 S2. Drop S1 as redundant.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Following the above notes, I would come up with:

For an article title, use a commonly recognizable name. The preferred name is usually the most prevalent name used in reliable English-language sources. This preferred name may or may not be an official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked name.
In determining the prevalence of a name, consider the usage in the sources referenced in the article, and you may also consider other reliable sources. Also consider the choice made by other encyclopedias.
The most prevalent name used may be discounted in favor of another of significant but lesser prevalence, due to problems such as: ambiguity, inaccuracy, non-neutrality, vulgarity or pedantry.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with copy editing a policy section is that very often without intending to a copy edit changes the nuance of a paragraph. Also as has been thrown up by the WP:RM at "Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered" the current prevalence of "name" in this section can confuse some and so the word title may be a more suitable option (although that has its own problems). One of the reasons why this policy was moved from "naming convention" to "article titles" was to get away from the idea the the title of the page was the correct name of the subject of the article. -- PBS (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that this isn't easy. That's also the reason why I initialized this discussion here, rather than just try to do it on my own. But I don't think that just because something is hard, it shouldn't be done. I think we can all agree that the section needs to become easier to read and more coherent, while maintaining the substance of its current form. So I guess we could make it a bit of a summer project to try to achieve that.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad suggested new version. I was worried at first seeing the "rationale" being thrown out, but it came back in the new first sentence as "use a commonly recognizable name". I still worry that the case is overstated in "The preferred name is usually the most prevalent ..." since that implies the recognizability "usually" trumps all the other title criteria. I'd be happier with "often". As for the recent inclusion of "sources referenced in the article", that's a complete distraction, part of the recent hackery whose purpose remains hard to discern. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be good to see this done as the current wording isnt clear to all readers. I agree with Dicklyon in that the source names used are a distraction only, we wouldnt give weight to names in old sources if the name had been changed at some point. And common sense would dictate that sourced names be included in any discussion where it wasnt necessarily clear as to what would be preferred. -- Nbound (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On “usually” versus “often”. It is definitely “usually” if you count all articles equally. Maybe if you count by page views, drawing more on popular terms and less on specialized topics, then it may be less than usual that there is no reason to not use the most prevalent name used. If you count titles discovered by following RM listings, well that is highly biased towards cases with problems. Is this policy intended for people naming new articles, or is it intended for participants in contested RM discussions? I think it should be the first. Policies should not begin by assuming expert readers.

Does recognizability trump all other criteria? No... I think “recognizability” is a low level test that is very hard to throw away, but “most recognised” is easily discounted if there is a particular problem.

On “Sources referenced in the article” or “includes usage in the sources used as references for the article” as currently worded, I quite like the notion that the most important sources are the sources referenced. It motivates improving the referencing before initiating a RM discussion. I find it frustrating to wander in to a RM discussion on an article with poor referencing, with inadequate references to give a feel for how others discuss the topic.

On the use of “name” or “title” or “subject” or “topic”. Yes, “name” occurs too many times, and I think rewording to use “title” would be better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For the first part of the suggested text, how about:
For an article title, use a commonly recognizable name. The preferred name title is usually the most prevalent name used in reliable English-language sources. This preferred name which may or may not be an official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked name.
In determining the prevalence of a name, consider the usage in the sources referenced in the article, and you may also consider other reliable sources. Also consider the choices made by other encyclopedias.
My problem with this part:
The most prevalent name used may be discounted in favor of another of significant but lesser prevalence, due to problems such as: ambiguity, inaccuracy, non-neutrality, vulgarity or pedantry.
is that I think it needs to refer back to the need to balance the "five characteristics" and not risk introducing different issues. So I would suggest:
In balancing the five desirable characteristics of an article title, the most prevalent name used may be discounted in favor of another of significant but lesser prevalence.
Even this isn't quite right, because in some cases a very uncommon name has been chosen (e.g. Fixed-wing aircraft to avoid a choice between "Airplane" and "Aeroplane"). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you know of any other examples of "in some cases a very uncommon name has been chosen"? At one time Airplane and Aeroplane did redirect to Fixed-wing aircraft, but no longer. Airplane is now an article to which Aeroplane redirects. So it's no longer the case that we use Fixed-wing aircraft in order to avoid having to decide between Airplane and Aeroplane.

Even if there are other examples, I suggest they are so rare that that they fall under WP:IAR, and there is no need to account for them in COMMONNAME wording. --B2C 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realized that had changed. I don't know any examples quite like this one used to be, but Association football wasn't chosen because of it's prevalence. I agree that it's a mistake to try to cover all possible weird cases. I guess what I meant was that "significant but lesser prevalence" should perhaps just be "significant prevalence". Peter coxhead (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need a rewrite. I have long thought that the section should try to better tie COMMONNAME into the 5 basic principles articulated in the CRITERIA section. COMMONNAME is really more about method than it is about result... Examining what the real world outside of Wikipedia uses when discussing the subject/topic, and following the most commonly used usage is how we determine what title will best achieve the desired balance.
One thing we need to make clearer... COMMONNAME is not a matter of simply counting google hits and seeing which variant is in the majority. Quality of sources needs to be factored in to the equation as well... if there is a clear commonality among the higher quality sources (referring to a topic as "X"), that can outweigh a larger commonality among sources of lower quality (referring to the topic as "Y"). Or to put it another way... if all the high quality sources call it "X", we should follow those... even if there are more low quality sources that call it "Y".
I also think the rewite could do more explain that, sometimes, there is no COMMONNAME... and tell editors what to do when a COMMONNAME can not be determined. This happens quite often. We need to say that when a look at the sources shows no significant difference in usage between two or three names... any of them would be acceptable as a title... and that they need to look beyond COMMONNAME to determine which to use. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, I agree with your points. I think it's particularly important to mention the quality of the sources. I've encountered an argument which can be crudely paraphrased as "that's a high brow term which I didn't know, so it isn't a COMMONNAME". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; titles should be encyclopedic.
So can you suggest specific changes to the wording? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not yet... what I am thinking about is more of a complete rewrite... something that would require a lot more than a simple tweak or added sentence (and thus a lot more discussion). So I want to do more thinking to make sure I do it right... I am hoping to find language that I think clarifies the concept of COMMONNAME... explains the nuances we have been discussing... and does it all clearly and concisely - without changing the underlying meaning of the policy. Not easy, nor something to do quickly. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, a rewrite that better relates to the criteria is needed. Too often people invoke COMMONNAME in support of a counting argument. I'd be careful about how much emphasis we put on high-quality sources, though, as some interpret that as meaning specialist sources; it's better to put more emphasis on high-quality sources written for a non-specialist audience. Also, we should make it clear that even very significant differences in commonness are OK when choosing between names; we often choose a less concise and less common name to improve precision (e.g. Dwight D. Eisenhower over the more common Eisenhower, even though he is primarytopic for that more concise very common name (though the precision criterion has been twisted to discourage doing so). Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The WP:CRITERIA were reverse-engineered from policy stalwarts like WP:COMMONNAME, thus yielding naturalness and recognizability. I agree it's a good idea to rewrite COMMONNAME in those terms.

As to quality of sources, I agree it's important to distinguish general usage from usage in reliable sources, but trying to refine quality of sources beyond that opens the door for more disagreement of the "my source is of higher quality than yours" kind. Then we have to talk about quality of sources and how to discern among sources in that respect. I'm pretty sure that's not currently documented anywhere (and I suggest for good reason). I don't think we want to go down that path, and probably should even guide against doing so. Usage in reliable sources should be our guiding light, period. --B2C 21:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement over what counts as a reliable source is one of the major factors in the most intractable disputes over article titles. Not to offer any guidance at all is surely just a cop-out, reducing the usefulness of WP:AT. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
But back in 2008, the common name page included discussion of exceptions for enhanced precision, cleaner disambiguation and/or solution of naming conflicts, which might lead to article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used". Also Other exceptions are contained in the Manual of Style. Most of that got dropped from the modern COMMONNAME section, which is why it has been left sounding so autocratic and is so often misapplied by being considered in isolation. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter, guidance about what counts as a reliable source is documented quite extensively at WP:RS. Are you suggesting we should duplicate/fork that here?

Anyway, I do agree on providing guidance about that (whether it's by deferring to WP:RS or adding some clarification here too). My objection is to trying to subdivide the category of reliable sources into higher and lower quality reliable sources, and giving more weight to "higher quality" reliable sources than to "lower quality" reliable sources. That just seems like a can of worms. Plus, when we're determining what is most natural and recognizable, what difference does it make whether the reliable sources we examine are of the caliber of the New York Times, or that of the the SomeSmallTown Gazette? These are all published sources that are, in aggregate, likely to reflect the very usage that determines what is most natural and recognizable, no? --B2C 23:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, quality of sources already has to be assessed when determining due weight for different viewpoints in articles. Although that is usually done by considering technical sources, while COMMONNAME probably has to consider sources aimed at laypeople (if available). I don't know if this makes it harder than otherwise to evaluate the quality of sources. It might be.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The considerations for determining DUE WEIGHT don't apply to COMMON NAME. The whole point of looking at usage in RS rather than usage in all sources is to exclude biases that might be reflected in unreliable sources like Facebook, discussion forums, and blogs. Once we weed that out we're good. No need to go beyond that in terms of classifying reliable sources by quality. 💋 --B2C 04:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable source for different purposes differs. For example, WP:MEDRS rightly lays down very strict criteria for sources supporting medical claims; basically it only accepts review articles in medical sources. But if you are deciding on the title of an article about a disease, such sources should be given low weight; they are too specialized for this purpose. WP:RS and the like are not concerned with what counts as a reliable source for the purpose of deciding on an article title.
Dicklyon has made some good points; I hadn't realized how different COMMONNAME used to be, and spirit of the 2008 version does seem better to me. The present version is too "narrow"; its main message seems to be "never mind the quality, feel the width" (or to be more precise, "measure the width"). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

B2C, why does there not need to be further classification of sources? I think the suggestion to especially look at high quality sources has been in the policy text for quite a long time, and taking it out of the policy text would be a change in the policy which would need justification.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

For editors' information, there's a vigorous Requested move debate currently going on at Talk:Moctezuma II which encapsulates many of these problems. The Aztec ruler is known to leading English-language scholars active in the field as "Moctezuma"; but he has traditionally been known as "Montezuma", which therefore scores highly on metrics, and is likely to be the form most searchers will use. WP:COMMONNAME has been cited in support of the proposed move. GrindtXX (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and the close is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_July#Moctezuma_II exactly because the close seems to rest on the idea that WP:COMMONNAME means that "layman's sources trump specialist sources", instead of COMMONNAME being based on the usage of reliable sources for the topic. I am considering making an RfC to clarify the policy in this regards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I would change "rest on the idea" to "assert" I think this is important to resolve. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have given this some though and I think that having a summary paragraph at the start of a policy section is a bad idea. This has recently led to a log debate over the OR section WP:PSTS. The problem is that people tend to spot the differences between the initial summary and the body of the section, and this leads to more strife than it alleviates. While some styles of documents benefit from a summary, a contract or a treaty usually do not have paragraphs that summarise content as it is easy to see that such a paragraph can lead to confusion. -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

PBS, this is an easy to agree with post, but what exactly are you talking about? Are you suggesting deleting the text we are discussing copy-editing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope to introduce new guidelines on Chinese/Korean/Japanese surnames

There is an on going discussion, but I think changing the guideline is beyond the scope of that. What I am proposing here has these grounds:

  1. using pure English titles makes it even harder to look up as an encyclopaedic term.
  2. multiple characters have the same/similar pronunciation.(dozens of homonym, homophones)

The current guideline states to always use transliterations, but obviously it is creating more problems than it tries to solve. Illiterates of the block letter language and new learners will have trouble looking up the correct word, even if they have the correct character in hand. The block letter languages makes use of visual parts to help users to recognize the words, instead of just using the pronunciation of it. The proposal of giving the characters a meaning is also completely useless, since the same character can have multiple meanings yet multiple characters can also have the same meaning in English.(say, 靈, 魂 and 魄 can all be translated to just "soul" or "ghost") and there are a lot of surnames that has long dropped they original meaning to begin with.(some are simply location names, or even a word made up as a reward from the emperor). It will be much more reasonable to have a disambiguation page for the homophones, but yet the pages itself should use the block character itself as a better indication of what the page is about. Seriously, as a person who understands Chinese, I find it impossible to understand what surname character I am looking for with the current "X (surname character meaning Y)" type of naming, and find it rather offensive, since the names may not even be originated as what word the page currently used at all. As an example, Lee does not neccessarily mean plum, according to a few legends, it originated as 理 "reason", which is a homophone, but had to change the writing due to being chased down by authorities, and others relating it back to Laozi gets connection of it meaning "tiger" in his dialect(which is also the coat of arms of a certain tribe of the Lee family). It is quite obvious that whoever proposed the change has little to none understanding of the Chinese language. In a purely vocal description of the character in Chinese, it is usually stated as 木子李 "Lee, Wood+Son"(notice the written parts consisting of the two characters, instead of "plum". It is more often that the given names are related to the meaning instead of the surname. (Especially in some areas, we don't even call plums as 李 anymore, since it it an homophone of 梨 pear, people in Hong Kong for example call plum "布冧", which is a transliteration of plum) I believe the guideline was created because we want more user friendly titles, and a direct approach to that is to make sure the naming is in English so users can type in the name easier. However, in this case, it will make the search much harder. Using the original character in the title gives these advantages:

  1. Recognizability
  2. Natural
  3. Precise
  4. Concise
  5. Consistence (once made public)

Which is what this guideline looks for. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 10:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. This is the English-language Wikipedia. Use of non-roman characters in article titles fails on recognizability for the vast majority of our readers, not to mention WP:ACCESS problems. This is a complete non-starter. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, we should be following what English-language sources refer to things as. No English-language source will use Chinese characters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
hi Rob. Your claim that no english language sources will use chinese characters is, frankly, laughable. Please pick up a book on chinese surnames, written in english, from your local library - any one of your choising. I think you'll find that such books do indeed use chinese characters, i gave several examples below. I would oppose titles entirely in chinese of course, but in rare cases, using chars as a disambiguator is natural.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - to aid searching, I could see allowing non-English language characters to be used in a redirect ... but I would avoid them in the actual title of the article. That should be in English. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem with that. There are already redirects of this nature. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Question why would we want to use a title that no body will use just because we have to coop with a guideline that did not take into account the practicality? WP:BURO if we insist on the current guideline, it seems to be just a plain bureaucratic decision since it got no practical purpose other than serving the bureaucratic needs. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There was a long discussion at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit")#Requested move where there was no consensus to move to a title using Chinese characters. I explained my reasons in some detail there. Briefly, in the English Wikipedia, it must be possible to type either the article's title or an "obvious" equivalent on any standard English keyboard.
    What I mean by "obvious" is best explained by examples. There's no great problem with diacritics in titles. Consider Brontë family; there's an obvious non-diacritic redirect, Bronte family. Hence we can arrange for "Brontë family" to be easily reachable by typing only visually equivalent ASCII characters. The same applies to the multiply character in hybrid species. Consider Musa × paradisiaca; there's an obvious redirect using an "x" at Musa x paradisiaca. Again we can arrange for any title using a multiply sign to be easily reachable by typing only a visually equivalent ASCII character. But suppose the title contains 李. There's simply no way someone not able to read Chinese and using a standard English keyboard can reach this article via its title. This is unacceptable in the English Wikipedia.
    By all means have a redirect for those who can input Chinese characters, but not the article title. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is just WP:forum shopping as far as I can tell. There have been repeated discussions of this issue, e.g. at Talk:Li. There's never been a consensus to use Chinese characters in article titles. It's time-wasting to raise it again here, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply There is also no consensus to move it to the current title as well, no discussion at all. And obviously the other pages that were moved were all using the Chinese characters for a long time. I'd say this is a very bad practice here, you moved it without discussion, and insist there's no consensus to move it back. No, there's no consensus to move it in the first place, the move itself is without consensus, and performed by people with little expertise in the language itself that do not even know that the surnames carries different meanings than the one used. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • PS about WP:ACCESS, as I've stated above, the new naming method used (X as the meaning of Y) is less likely to be used and understood by common users. it got a worse accessibility than the Chinese characters. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't move anything. You don't deal with the point I made at all. Any naming system that includes characters that can't be input by a monolingual English speaker with an English keyboard and which can't be read to such a person by a screen reader if they have a sight problem isn't appropriate in the English Wokipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to conciseness, consistency, naturalness, and recognizability. As for precision it only requires that the article be sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and that can be done without using other languages. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • support there was a consensus, a silent one at that, as these articles lived with chinese titles for several years with nary a complaint. Mythsearcher is right, the chinese-char titles were based on a consensus RM in which jimbo participated, and he invoked IAR. So cries of 'no consensus' are silly.going forward, I suggest we bake this exception into the rules - eg non-latin-alphabet unicode characters can be used in articles titles, only to disambiguate, when multiple transliterations lead to namespace collisions, or when the article in question is literally about the symbol /character in question (such as Radical 20, which should be Radical 20 勹). The main title would still be transliterated, the only time you might have a special char is for namespace collisions or for the radical articles. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Inadequacy of current WP:UE guideline with regard to Chinese names

WP:UE currently states that: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated." However, this causes a problem with three states in ancient China (named 黎, 郦, and 厉 in Chinese) that all transliterate as "Li" in English. To further complicate the issue, three different surnames have originated from these states, and are also transliterated to "Li". The three surnames currently reside at Lí (surname), Li Surname (郦), and Li (surname meaning "whetstone") (recently moved to this wrong title), respectively. This mess has resulted in lengthy discussions on several related pages, especially at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit").

The obvious solution is to use the original Chinese character as disambiguator, but that has been challenged on the basis of WP:UE. However, after two weeks of endless discussion, no viable alternative has been provided. The root of the problem is that it's the very transliteration mandated by WP:UE that causes the ambiguity, when multiple distinct Chinese characters transliterate into the same English spelling. I propose that we amend the guideline to allow disambiguating using the original language when ambiguity results from the mandated transliteration itself (but only as a last resort when other workarounds cannot be found). The same problem also occurs with numerous other Chinese surname articles. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think WP:UE applies for terms in parenthetical disambiguations. I really see WP:UE as an extension of WP:UCN (telling editors to look at what English language sources are doing), and I think WP:UCN only applies to the main part of the title, the part which isn't in parenthesis. And WP:NATURAL and WP:DAB which do regulate these disambiguation terms do not include anything on this matter. So I think this matter will have to be settled over at the naming conventions for Chinese-related article, WP:NC-CHINA, where some general rule for these kinds of situations can be made.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Think of our audience... the typical reader of the English language version of wikipedia does not understand Chinese characters... so adding a Chinese character will not help the typical reader to disambiguate between the various topics. The disambiguation has to be done using English. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, otherwise we might as well disambiguate by adding an arbitrary string of unique characters. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's easy to say we have to use English only, but after two weeks of endless discussion, no viable alternative using English only has been found. See analysis of alternatives below. And I think it's inappropriate to equate the names in the original language with arbitrary strings. -Zanhe (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No, but for a reader such as myself who doesn't read or understand Chinese text, the symbols are quite worthless to me. I think a useful, even if ugly, disambiguator is more valuable than an elegant one that few readers will understand. Resolute 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly neither solution is optimal. The (surname meaning "X")-disambiguator is rather cumbersome and clumsy. The Chinese character is hard to remember for people who do not read Chinese, and may not be able to render on all devices. But seen from the position of someone looking up a surname, I think the Chinese character is better, since the (surname meaning "X")-form presupposes that the person looking the article already knows what the name means, something one might very well have turned to the encyclopedia to find out. The Chinese character, on the other hand, only presupposes that the person who looks up the article has the Chinese character for the name at hand, something I think is more likely.
But in the end, my point is that this is just not the right venue for this discussion. WP:UE has, in my reading of it, no objections to raise to either solution. What WP:UE would speak against is to try to make the Chinese character into a natural disambiguation, since then the average English reader would have absolutely no idea what to expect the article to contain. It would also fail the naturalness criterion, since I find it hard to imagine that an English-language text aimed at non-Chinese speakers would ever just use the character without specifying its meaning. I could however quite readily imagine either of the two parenthetic disambiguation option being used in an English-language text.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Are there academic publications in English that discuss the different surnames (by sociologists, for example)? If not, or if such publications' method of differentiating the surnames prove inadequate for Wikipedia, how about, for example, Li (surname. Falling tone, 厲: "whetstone")? It seems that meaning, character, and tone are the 3 most likely ways an English speaker would have had the type of Li explained to him/her. I expect that meaning is probably the one that a non-Chinese speaker is most likely to remember, and would therefore be the most useful, but some readers might have a written version of the name at hand for comparison.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That would be a good way to do it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but no. That's equivalent to a title like John (name meaning toilet). See more detailed reasoning below. -Zanhe (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't. This is misdirection. The origin of the name "John" is not from the toilet, and even if there were multiple meanings of the name "John", we would most likely cover them on the same page "John (name)" rather than split to separate articles, as the etymology would not be apparent when reading the name "John", much like the etymology is not apparent to an English speaker when reading the name "Li". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
"The origin of the name John is not from the toilet": of course not, and that's exactly the point: the origin of Ji is not concubine and the origin of Li is not whetstone. And are you saying that Lee (English surname) and Lee (Korean surname) need be merged? -Zanhe (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with that suggestion, but it's not too much of a problem as it's clearly delineated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, the different Chinese names are also clearly delineated in the original language. It's only the process of transliteration mandated by the policy that causes the ambiguity. That's why the policy needs to be amended to address that deficiency. -Zanhe (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Many English publications that need to deal with large lists of Chinese names put the Chinese original in parentheses. For example, see the article titles of Biographical Dictionary of New Chinese Entrepreneurs and Prominent Indonesian Chinese. -Zanhe (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, covering all the surnames Li in a single article would probably be a lot easier and avoid lengthy naming discussions that detract from article writing.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether a single article is better or not for "Li" doesn't mean that it applies in all cases. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And it would introduce a whole new slew of problems (with WP:DAB and wikidata/interwiki) without fixing any existing ones, simply shifting them to the section title level. See more detailed reasoning below. -Zanhe (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm also in favour of this method. There have been lengthy discussions on this at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit"). As we don't differentiate between the surnames in English, a larger article benefits the reader. As I've said elsewhere: "If we present the information on a single article, scholars of Chinese and English-only readers alike can find the information easily without struggling through a dozen different articles trying to find the right one." and "We can make one encyclopedic article, or a muddle of stubs of dubious notability with confusing disambiguators. And as other editors have pointed out, all variations of the surname "Li" are treated the same way in English. I'm not saying we don't differentiate, I'm saying that we cover every one on a single article. What do we lose that way? If anything, we gain, because the ones that would not be notable in their own right, get coverage that they would not otherwise receive." Also, there's the issue of WP:ACCESS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
"What do we have to lose?" it defeats the whole purpose of WP:DAB and breaks Wikidata (as they all have separate articles on Chinese, Japanese and other wikis). Yet it does not fix the problem for English readers. They still have to go to the one huge article to find out which name is which, ultimately still using the original Chinese characters. -Zanhe (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 100% oppose any suggestion that we allow Chinese characters in article titles (and WP:AT does include the disambiguator). It fails on recognizability for anyone who is not a Chinese reader. And this is the English Wikipedia, so we need to make all article titles recognizable to English reading people. Also, it causes WP:ACCESS problems. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Robin and Wikimedes, can you listen to those who know the language and not use your own language to judge others? English is a sound based language, and the spelling simply show the sound of the word, so it works in the way you are talking about. The Block letter languages starts from pictures, and is not a sound based language, so different characters are completely different words, and thus should not be placed in the same page. What you are proposing here, stating because they sounded the same so we should place them in the same page? its like placing the names John, Sean, Jean (french name), etc. in the same page calling it names that homophones with John, which obviously makes no sense at all. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 11:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Rob, you don't need to shout. It's arguable whether WP:AT includes the disambiguator or not. But no matter, if the current policy mandating transliteration causes new problems of ambiguity (there's no ambiguity in the original language), the policy is obviously deficient and it needs to be addressed. -Zanhe (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 100% oppose Chinese characters in titles, agreeing with reasons provided by Rob Sinden above. The solution for surnames is to merge all Li articles into Li (surname). As for the 3 kingdoms, there are other ways to distinguish them (by year maybe, for example like the 2 Jin Dynasty. Timmyshin (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That "solution" has been discussed ad nauseum and does not work. There are 8 different surnames that transliterate as Li in total, merging them violates WP:DAB, breaks Wikidata, and solves no problem for English readers: they still have to figure out which is which within the big article, ultimately using the Chinese characters. -Zanhe (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  • A summary of why proposed alternatives don't work (already discussed ad nauseum at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit")):
    • Alternative 1 (Disambiguation by name meaning) is wrong. Most Chinese surnames originate from names of ancient states or places. Many of these names have no other meaning at all, whereas some others have over the millennia evolved to acquire new meanings unrelated to the surname. For example, Jī (surname) (姬), the royal surname of the Zhou Dynasty, was named after the Ji River, but in modern usage it means concubine. Using such meanings to disambiguate the surnames is simply wrong and sometimes offensive. Any similar proposal regarding familiar English names would be instantly met with disbelief and ridicule: just imagine article titles like John (name meaning toilet), Randy (name meaning lustful), or Sandy (name meaning full of sand).
    • Alternative 2: (No disambiguation and merging the articles into one) introduces more problems than it solves. It ignores the fact that all these names have completely different origins and thousands of years of divergent history, and lumps them together just because they happen to share the same spelling in English. That would be an outright violation of the WP:Disambiguation guideline and would create a huge mess with interwiki. And for what gain? It solves no problem whatsoever, simply shifting it from the article title level to the section title level within the one big article. Ultimately the different names with the same spelling still have to be distinguished by their original Chinese characters. In summary, it would introduce a whole new slew of problems without fixing any existing ones.
In summary, after two weeks of endless discussion on multiple talk pages, no viable alternative has yet been offered. -Zanhe (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I would urge any interested party to actually read the discussions, rather than to accept the above editor's interpretation of events. This "summary" is misrepresentative and biased to their own opinion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If you think any part of my reasoning is faulty, refute it and offer a solution that works, instead of simply saying no, as you've been doing for a whole week. We need a working solution, not endlessly clinging to inadequate current policy and calling people who disagree with you a cabal. -Zanhe (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Chinese characters was pretty much ruled out in the move request. Other solutions have been offered, but you refuse to compromise away from anything that does not include a Chinese character. So much so that you are trying to change the policy in order to fit the view of yourself and a handful of other Chinese speakers. Remember, this is English Wikipedia, and it should be accessible for English speakers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you stop twisting the facts to suit your own needs? The move request ended in "No consensus", meaning nothing is ruled out. As I've already spent so much time explaining to you in the past week, hiding the characters from the article titles solves no problem for English speakers. They'll still have to distinguish them in the section title level, ultimately using the Chinese characters. -Zanhe (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Reason listed above. WP:ACCESS is THE REASON here. NO ONE is going to use what Robinsinden proposed, who know nothing in Chinese, and most of those who oppose the idea is WP:IDONTLIKEIT who know little to none Chinese or any block letter language, and keep using a faulty reasoning about access. No, people who don't know what the word is will not type in "X surname meaning Y" in the search box, it helps nobody. I'll support your argument if you can give me a reasonable reason why anyone with little knowledge of the word will do this.
  • Additional grounds:
  1. Even academic papers uses the Chinese characters to distinguish the surnames, do a simple search and there's tons of it.
  2. What is being used now is the equivalent of this: Robin (Medieval diminutive of Robert, meaning bright fame)", who in their right mind uses this kind of title? no one, the only reason this was done is because of the WP:POINT argument made with the current guideline, which is WP:BURO. People come to wikipedia for answers, not because they have knowledge of the topic, most canNOT tell the exact pronunciation and meaning of the word BEFORE they read the article, so the current title used are plain USELESS.
  3. Most who can compare pictures can compare the character with the one in the title, and click on the link to it, and those who got their character on a computer or smartphone can copy and paste, so the WP:ACCESS problem is NOT a problem. In fact, its much less of a problem than the special latin characters suggested in the WP:UE, a regular English computer user don't really know how to type all those ç, ø, and ö, etc. as well, but if they are found predominate in English language reliable sources and this can be a grounds, obviously this can be applied to block letter languages as well.(which a google scholar search returns with many academic sources that uses the original character in them as well.) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 11:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding WP:ACCESS, we asked at the project page and User:Graham87 commented as follows: "I can confirm that screen readers read all Chinese characters as question marks unless specifically instructed otherwise (i.e. by the use of a Chinese-language speech synthesizer or by multi-megabyte pronunciation dictionaries which almost nobody uses), so for that reason alone, they should not be in article titles." --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, disallowing Chinese characters as a disambiguator does not solve the WP:ACCESS problem, simply shifting it to the section title level. If a user really wants to learn about the similar-sounding Chinese surnames, he or she simply has no choice but using a Chinese-language speech synthesizer or dictionary. -Zanhe (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding those "who know little to none Chinese", I remind you again that this is English-language Wikipedia, and we should assume that all readers "know little to none Chinese". The only people that support the use of Chinese characters are Chinese speakers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If someone really wants to differentiate the Chinese names that sound exactly the same, they have no choice but learn to tell the difference between the original Chinese characters. That's why most academic publications that deal with large number of Chinese names usually add the original Chinese in parentheses. And don't forget that the "Chinese speakers" you refer to are also English speakers, or we wouldn't be posting here. We simply have the cultural background in both languages, understand the nuances in both cultures, and would not make incompetent mistakes such as yours. -Zanhe (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Robin, your argument is faulty, users knowing little to none Chinese look for useful information that can help them, not stupidly named pages made up by ignorant editors who have no knowledge in the subject that gives them zero information and impossible redirections. Also, wikipedia works in unicode, which should display the terms right as long as you have installed it. Users who looks for information about Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters have to tell the difference of the terms sooner or later. Using the characters in the title solves the problem for these users, while it might not solve the problem for those who did not have unicode installed, it is still better than using the methods you have proposed, which solves no problems but introduces more redirects. Also, most smartphones(androids and iOS alike) and newer OSs have unicode to begin with, most newer versions of Windows as well. So the method of having the character in the title is just going to be more and more useful. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 13:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Myth... You say "Users who looks for information about Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters have to tell the difference of the terms sooner or later." ... I have to quibble... I think it highly unlikely that non-chinese speaking users will be looking for information about Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters. Our readers would be looking for information about the anglicized words or names. English speaking readers will be looking for information on the anglicized name "Li", not the Chinese characters 黎, 郦, or 厉. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
For those who are less intellectually curious, yes, all they need to know is that Bruce Lee, Robert E Lee, and Lee Myung-bak all have the same family name. For those who do want to find out the unique origins and thousands of years of divergent history of different surnames, they ultimately do need to be able to tell the difference between the original characters. -Zanhe (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No... they don't need to be able to tell the difference... they need to be told that there is a difference, and what that difference is. That is something that should be done in the article text, not in the title. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Blueboar, you are using yourself to judge others, and tries to eliminate people who are here for actual info.
  1. Quoted from WP:MTAU:
  • On familiarity with the subject.
    • The general reader has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is before reading.
    • The knowledgeable reader has an education in the topic's field but wants to learn about the topic itself.
    • The expert reader knows the topic but wants to learn more or be reminded about some fact, or is curious about Wikipedia's coverage.

The "X surname meaning Y" targets none of these subjects, and "X (Chinese character)" targets the 2nd and 3rd, while the 1st can tell by comparing the character in the blankets as long as unicode is installed in their system(which is more and more wide spread nowadays).

  1. Also, as stated above, we don't group contents together just because they are homophones and you cannot tell them apart just because you don't know the language.
  2. Yes, they don't need to be able to tell the difference in the title, but it is the easiest way to solve the problem, and no other proposed method solves the problem. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The only way to satisfactorily address point 1 would be to explain all the differences and nuances on a single page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thinking outside the box

I have an unorthodox suggestion that (to my mind) would resolve the issue. All of the articles in question are about surnames that, in English, are anglicized as "Li"... So... I would suggest merging them into one single Li (surname) article. Start the combined article off with a sentence that says something along the lines of:

  • "Li is the anglicization for three distinct Chinese surnames (presented as 黎, 郦, and 厉 in Chinese)".

Then go on to discuss each surname in its own section - Li (黎), Li (郦) and Li (厉)... noting the differences in meaning, tonality, etc. Do this and there is no longer a need for disambiguation at the title level. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have also made the same suggestion, which seems like a reasonable solution, but this appears unacceptable to our Chinese-speaking friends. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this suggestion is hardly novel. That someone is saying it is "thinking outside the box" merely means that person did not bother to read the discussion. _dk (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Rob, I've explained the downsides of that approach to you on at least five different occasions. Again, instead of refuting my reasoning with solid arguments, you repeatedly use words like "cabal" and "our Chinese-speaking friends" insinuating some kind of conspiracy. That's nothing but personal attack. -Zanhe (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a fair assumption that the only people arguing in favour of the usage of Chinese characters can speak Chinese. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Even if that assumption were true, does that justify your continued insinuation of conspiracy? -Zanhe (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And I've explained to you at least as many times why we cannot use Chinese characters. Your arguments have also been refuted many times. But apparently you are right and I am wrong. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What's your argument other than "WP:UE is sacrosanct and it is worth breaking other parts of Wikipedia to keep it the way it is"? -Zanhe (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, you're misrepresenting me. Recognizability and accessibility are my main issues. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
As I've already explained many times, disallowing Chinese characters as a disambiguator does not solve the WP:ACCESS problem, simply shifting it to the article level. And what's recognizability, isn't that the same as WP:UE? -Zanhe (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Umm - recognizability is number one on the list of naming criteria! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Basically you're saying the characters are not recognizable because they are not English, that's the same as WP:UE. -Zanhe (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This proposal has already been discussed multiple times elsewhere. See above. The main downside is it violates WP:DAB and breaks Wikidata, without making it easier for English speakers to distinguish the surnames. The root of the problem is that ambiguity results from the transliteration mandated by WP:UE, and I think it's best to fix WP:UE itself rather than hold it sacrosanct while breaking other parts of Wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the Wikidata issue really that important? And does it really violate WP:DAB? And why do you assert that WP:UE is broken? It isn't. We don't use Chinese characters for very good reason. Certainly better reasons than for ensuring Wikidata is supported. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Is absolutely not allowing Chinese characters (only as disambiguator and only as a last resort) at the expense of everything else really that important? WP:UE is deficient because the very transliteration requirement it mandates results in ambiguity that cannot be easily resolved without resorting to the original language, thus creating a Catch-22 situation. -Zanhe (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
In fact, per WP:DABCONCEPT: "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
)ec) I am sorry if this is something that has been discussed before... you came here for third party (outside) opinions, and so I presented the idea as an outsider to those previous debates. I am not sure how a merge violates WP:DAB (as Rob notes, DAB seems to explicitly encourage such a merger) ... perhaps someone could explain. Also, explain how would it break Wikidata? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The terms are not a broad concept. They have nothing in common at all except their spelling in English, which is why disambiguation is needed. Saying the three different states (黎, 郦, 厉) and the surnames derived from them are one "broad concept" just because they are all spelled the same is like saying Georgia (country) and Georgia (US state) are the same concept. It breaks Wikidata because in other languages (Chinese, Japanese, etc.) the surnames have separate articles which cannot be mapped to a big single English article. -Zanhe (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in common except their spelling in English... and the fact that they are surnames. That gives them two things in common that we can hang a merged article on. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, that is a complete nonsense way of doing things based on little knowledge in the subject, i.e. ignorant. Just because they have something in common does not mean we should have them together in one article, just like we will not have boar and bore in the same article just because they are homophones. Even as dictating as the Chinese government, they acknowledged the two Jones (鐘 and 鍾) are different surnames and therefore should not use the same simplified character, but now you are proposing to group them together because they are homophones, so why not group them with the English surname Jones as well? It does not make any sense, I'm telling you. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. You need to stop calling everyone "ignorant". By the way, those two Joneses look very similar to me. If I look really closely I can see that they have swapped hats, but as an English reader I wouldn't be able to pick them out of a lineup. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that there are two translations for Jones into Chinese? I'm not quite sure of the relevance. When transliterated back to Jones, of course they should be on the same page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually there is only one article on Jones (surname), and as far as I know, there is only one Jones (surname) in English. Why is it transliterated two different ways into Chinese, and what relevance does this have to the English Wikipedia?--Wikimedes (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you guys learn about the language before pretending you know about it and make suggestion on what should be done? Or you'd rather have people that have no knowledge in an article but still write tons of stuff in it? The two Jones are Chinese surnames, they happen to be the homophone of Jones in English, which suits perfectly in the nonsense suggestion made up there, "because they are surnames and have similar pronunciation, we should merge them together into 1 article." —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
There I thought that since Jones was an English surname and this is the English Wikipedia that you were referring to the English surname. Thanks for clarifying that there are two homonym surnames of Jones in Chinese (could have done without all the drama though). You're point still seems pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand though.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That's the most ridiculous argument I've seen in a very long time. Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine are both spelled Portland and are both US cities, so they're the same concept and you're going to merge them into one article? -Zanhe (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - not a fair comparison. A big difference between surnames that in English would all be grouped together in the same section of the phone book, and two distinct geographical regions thousands of miles apart. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually... if all the various articles on places named "Portland" were small enough, we certainly could merge them into one overarching article simply entitled Portland (with sections on each city). The reason we don't is that there is enough reliably sourced material on each to warrant having separate articles. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I am saying, if you don't know anything about a language, but keep giving "proposals" that don't help other than offending people who actually know the language, and was explicitly told so multiple times and your response is that there's a cabal against you, you are pretty ignorant and uncivil. Check WP:CIR#Lack of technical expertise. Technical knowledge is not usually a problem at all, as long as they don't delve into areas that require it. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, it's not a problem. You are obviously working out of your zone of expertise, and keep making suggestions that show little knowledge to the topic. I use the Jones to show how your suggestion makes no sense at all, because the two Jones and the English surname Jones all have similar pronunciation, so you think merging them is a good idea? You are able to find differences of the different Portlands because you have expertise in the topic, and your argument works around that to ignore the argument is about people who do know the differences, they find the idea of merging them is nonsense. It is essentially the same situation here when you are trying to say merging the surnames are better. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 17:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Um... Myth... Was that last bit directed at me? If so, please note that I have never said anything about any cabal. I absolutely respect differences of opinion, and have no problem with other editors disagreeing with me (although I do expect the same courtesy in return... I ask that others respect my right to disagree with them). Also... could you expand on your comment about their being two "Jones"? I am not sure what you are referring to.
As to the various Portlands... As I said, there is no reason why we could not have single generic "main article" entitled simply Portland (or Portland (town name)) instead of the current disambiguation page (in listified form). The text of such an article would likely have a different focus than either of the articles on the individual towns - the "town name" article would probably focus broadly on the linguistic history of the name "Portland" (discussing its linguistic origins, and tracing it's usage from England to Maine and thence to Oregon), and would not really cover the civic history of the individual towns in the same detail as the specific town articles. But the point is... a "main article" on a broad topic is a perfectly acceptable alternative to having a listified DAB page. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No, its not directed to you but to a certain person who should know what I am talking about. What I am talking about the two Jones, Nothing in common except their spelling in English... and the fact that they are surnames. That gives them two things in common that we can hang a merged article on. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC) If they should be merged into 1 article just because the are similar as surnames and pronunciations, than we will have something as unreasonable as merging the English Jones to the Chinese Jones surnames. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
OK... thank you for clarifying... I thought you were talking to me and was confused. Let me see if I understand your "Jones" reference... are you saying that (in addition to the common English surname Jones), there are two Chinese surnames that are transliterated as "Jones"? Is this correct? Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to start out by saying I'm Chinese and I completely reject having Chinese characters in surname page titles. I'd like to give a Chinese perspective on why differentiating between characters in these surnames is IMO absurd. Chinese in its written form today has 2 types, simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese. Suppose the "Surname in English (Chinese character)" format is adopted, should "Zhang (张)" and "Zhang (張)" be 2 different pages? Any Chinese person would agree it's the same surname. But which one do you use? We can make a huge argument which would probably get into politics as it usually does. But let's suppose again that we have settled on one of these as the standard. Here's a thought: if Chinese people can accept merging Zhang (张) with Zhang (張), why can't they accept merging these with Zhang (章) too? I can already hear the answer, yes it's because 張 and 张 share the same "history", but 章 doesn't. But this doesn't consider the fact that languages evolve in the present also. Just as 張 evolved into 张 in Mainland China and Singapore (and in many cases in Malaysia). Other issues resulting from simplified Chinese vs. traditional Chinese also arise: ask a Mainland Chinese guy with the surname 丰, is his last name (before the simplification) originally 丰 or 豐? I bet he doesn't know (because I've done it.) Would you merge "Feng (丰)" and "Feng (豐)" then? China is also not the only country with a somewhat recent character simplification problem, for example some Japanese people today are surnamed 櫻木 while some others are surnamed 桜木. Are they the same surname? Well, once upon a time. But what is the difference? Really, other than the simplification of one of these characters, none. This is not just a problem resulting from PRC's simplification of Chinese characters, which, if I go into length, will again involve politics that I'm trying to avoid. But I want to give you this example. Two surnames 鍾　and 鐘 are not only confused in Mainland China due to both simplifying to 钟　but in Taiwan also, see http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/nov/17/today-so1-3.htm if you can read Chinese. The reason involves precisely a lot of the "you cannot read Chinese therefore you cannot judge Chinese surnames" argument above. The question is: Can a lot of Chinese people read Chinese? In the present without a doubt yes, but in the past, no. If you read histories of a lot of the surnames they are very often changed to, or confused with homonyms, by none other than Chinese people themselves. If you have read a lot of novels from the Ming Dynasty in their original hand-written manuscripts like I have, you would see lots and lots of "typos" and homonymic inconsistencies in personal names. And these are "literate" men, which is probably a minority during those times. In the old days a lot of Chinese people hire "literate" men to write out their names for them. You don't think these "literate" men would possibly confuse the names easily? Again, what is the point of disambiguation if you cannot even simply explain the difference in a parenthesis? So to summarize my point: do I think 张/張 is the same as 章? No. But do I think the difference is so large that they have to be separated in different pages, especially on an English wikipedia, for reasons already mentioned by others? Absolutely no. Timmyshin (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a valid concern, but it's been solved on the Chinese Wikipedia long ago. Simplified and traditional Chinese are treated as the same character, and there's no duplicate articles for the identical surname. I think (but not sure) on Chinese Wiki they use a first-come first-served scheme, similar to the English wiki solution on British-vs-American spellings. But if you believe the differences between the characters don't matter just because some ancient people have made some mistakes, I think you are very wrong. -Zanhe (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So how does it matter exactly? I've read the pages and I cannot see the difference as important. Again, characters change all the time, I've mentioned the Japanese examples 櫻木 vs. 桜木 in the past century; but let's use a Chinese example. In Mainland China some people have the surname 萧　on the official documents, some people have 肖. One means "sorrow" and one means "resemblance". So answer me please, are they the same surname or not and why? And what is the criteria of the "same" surname vs. "different" surname? Timmyshin (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Characters change very rarely, and I can easily read 2000-year-old Han Dynasty characters without much difficulty. On the other hand, pronunciation changes much more often, which is why surnames such as Liang (surname) can be variously transliterated as Liang, Leung, Leong, Neo, Nio, Niu, but still considered a single name, which another reason why disambiguating by character is better than by transliteration only. I think 萧 and 肖 should be treated the same because 肖 is the result of a partially-enforced simplification scheme of 萧. And that's an extremely rare exception that does not affect the vast majority of surnames. -Zanhe (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course I realize the dialect problem as the major reasoning behind pushing for Chinese characters in titles. That said, the fact that Liang, Leung, Leong, Neo, Nio, Niu have the same "root" in Chinese is irrelevant to an English or Western reader. They are all completely different surnames in the Latin alphabet and thus should have different articles, each containing the same possible character (which is I believe the current format). Do you think one should merge George = Jorge = Georg = Giorgio = Goran = Jorgan just because they have the same "root"? Now I realize the problem for example Tony Leung very infrequently being called Tony Liang creating confusion (probably better examples were in Hong Kong Shaw Brothers studio days where Cantonese speaking actors typically used Wade-Giles spellings of their surnames) but this is easily corrected with a Chinese template in the biographical (or other) page linking to wiktionary. I see absolutely no need to create a wikipedia page for something that belongs in wiktionary. Timmyshin (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Say we want to write an article on the origins and the distributions of the 梁 family, do we copy the same article to Liang, Leung, Leong, Neo, Nio, and Niu? Isn't it much more common sense to have it in one article? _dk (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
To cite another Taiwanese example, see this example of 温 vs 溫 (among others). http://gaosendao.com/bbs/thread-118-1-1.html (in Chinese). Somebody must find it amusing (otherwise it won't get published) because most Chinese/Taiwanese people cannot see a huge difference between 温 and 溫. But this is very arbitrary. How much different do 2 Characters have to be to be "sufficiently" different to constitute 2 surnames? Timmyshin (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of coming up with these exceptional cases? It's like arguing English spelling is irrelevant just because some words are spelled differently by different people (such as colour vs. color). How does it matter if some blogger thinks color and colour are two different words, which is the essence of your example of 温 vs 溫? If the dictionary says 温 and 溫 are the same, just like color and colour, then we treat them as the same character. (restoring comment deleted by Timmyshin. I assume it was an inadvertent mistake.) -Zanhe (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't any discussion of merging outside the scope of any activities here at WP:AT? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What would a merged article actually look like?

I thought it might help the discussion if people saw what a merged article might actually look like... so I have taken the liberty of drafting one in my user space.

Note... It isn't complete. I did not cut and pages all of the information that could go into it. I present my draft as a concept to be examined and discussed, and not as a final product.
I ask people not to edit my draft version... if you all find the concept and rough format acceptable, however, feel free to cut and paste it to another page... as a starter for a more complete article. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure looks great. You can easily do this on all currently disambiguated pages and abolish the whole concept of disambiguation. -Zanhe (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but I would not go that far. A merger like this might work for some topics that need disambiguation, but it definitely would not replace the entire concept of disambiguation (for one thing, some disambiguated articles are simply too long to be merged effectively). I merely offer this as a solution to a specific disambiguation problem. I am not so bold as to think that this concept would work (or be best) in other situations. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The thing is that we're trying to find a Wikipedia-wide policy solution, while you're working on a specific issue that may be fine in short term when the articles being merged are short stubs, but does not solve the problem in the long run. What would you do if someone expanded a few of the surname articles into feature-length articles? -Zanhe (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Good work.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Certainly more useful and informative than lots of non-notable stubs. I'd support this proposal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And not without precedent. See Le (surname). --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Le (surname) is nothing but a glorified dab page. And talk about precedent, the surname 利 had been at Lì (利) since 2006 without any issue until User:Bmotbmot, who's since been banned, made an undiscussed move two weeks ago, which led to an RM to undo his move, and the current deadlock. And 李 had also been at Li (李) until you moved it to Li (surname meaning "plum") without gaining consensus first, together with another move of Lí (黎) to Lí (surname meaning "dawn") which I partially reverted because it was completely wrong. -Zanhe (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
"Meaning plum" is ridiculous. But so is an English wiki title with a Chinese character. I see nothing wrong with this proposal. Timmyshin (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There was a strong recommendation by the closing admin not to use Chinese characters. And the move of Li (surname meaning "plum") wasn't me, but I followed the lead of the editor who did move that one when I moved Lí (surname meaning "dawn"). --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgive my pedantry, but the Li (李) to Li (surname meaning "plum") move was certainly by you. I only moved articles that had insufficient disambiguation, created by the banned user. I specifically ignored articles with Chinese characters as I knew there was no consensus either way. _dk (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I pointed out to you the downfall of disambiguating with meaning, which you acknowledged, and soon the move request was closed as "No Consensus". But you went on to do a number of controversial moves anyway, one of which was outright wrong. And it led to a huge outcry at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit")#Large scale mergers and moves by User:Robsinden. -Zanhe (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
We needed a temporary solution to get the articles away from the Chinese characters. And - "Huge outcry". LOL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You moved articles from names that contained correct Chinese characters to names containing wrong English meanings against consensus, and have the guts to call it a "temporary solution"? -Zanhe (talk)
The title I chose is what was found in the article. If it was wrong, take it up with whoever wrote the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that if you cannot spot a mistake like that, you probably do not have the competence to perform the moves, especially when there is no consensus from the community? -Zanhe (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus within the Wikipedia community to allow Chinese characters in article titles. If you don't believe that, then start a formal RfC and see if I am wrong. Otherwise accept that there has to be a compromise even if you don't regard it as the best approach and work with those trying to find a solution. Insisting that the only solution is Chinese characters isn't helpful when it's a solution explicitly ruled out in the English Wikipedia.

A single article on "Li (Chinese surname)" seems the best suggestion so far. The argument that it breaks Wikidata is irrelevant. There are many articles with no 1:1 equivalence between Wikipedias. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter, as people are asking for a change, there's also no consensus in using just English. We are obviously NOT the only ones asking for this. Whoever created those articles chose to use Chinese characters in it as well, and until someone with no apparent knowledge in the field came and force this policy on the pages that was consensus between people who know what they are doing. What's going on here are people without technical knowledges proposing different unhelpful ways just because of the policy, which is exactly what's stated in WP:NOT as WP:BURO. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 21:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
There is absolute consensus that we use English. That's why it's policy! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Except we do not. If it's Germanic, we don't use English at all. We use eszett, when for centuries, we've had a common transliteration for eszett in English, and not even all German dialects use eszett, but we still do it, even though in German, not every German variant uses it. We use thorn, even though we've had a common transliteration for it in English. We use eth, but this is also the same. There's no "accuracy" accrued in pronunciation, since non-English isn't prescribed with English pronunciation rules. We use it because it is disambiguatory, this is the same as using Chinese characters in the disambiguatory section of a page title (which is not the same as the name portion of an article name, which is the non-disambiguatory part). We should restrict all the non-English characters to the disambiguatory section (parenthesized section), but this doesn't seem to be the case on English Wikipedia, because we don't use English on English Wikipedia. There's no difference between one non-English character and another, be it Chinese or German. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no difference between one non-English character and another, be it Chinese or German – yes, there is, as I have explained several times. Characters which are formed by adding diacritical marks to the plain Latin letters are fine, because there is an obvious redirect at the same word without the diacritic (Brontë family – Bronte family). Characters which strongly resemble plain Latin letters are also fine for the same reason. (Musa × paradisiaca – Musa x paradisiaca). Chinese characters do not have obvious visual equivalents so there is no obvious way to input them using only plain Latin letters. Hence they should not be used in article titles in the English Wikipedia. (Redirects and disambiguation pages are a different matter.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The eth (ð) thorn (Þ) eszett (ß) are not accented characters, they are no different from Chinese, as they are letters not found in English. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, band articles keep showing up with Unicode graphics characters, or ASCII art, or L33T-speak, which are hardly different from Chinese, either. Indeed, from the looks of things, there's been a shift and we're restoring such things into musical act articles (see the "Sunn (band)" discussion indicated on this page) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not the case. We follow how things are referred to in English sources. Per WP:UE (again): "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So, we're adding all the ASCII art and L33T-speak to music band articles for this? (band articles are coming up for renaming now) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - that's another controversial issue. It's being discussed at MOS:TM. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What does Снова в СССР fall under? A Paul McCartney album clearly isn't Russian, but it has a non-English title without an official English equivalent. Using a user-made translation might venture into WP:OR territory. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We're not using English-language sources for many of the renames, we're using native language sources (like German-language sources) to justify the article names. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, according to this policy, we should. Any examples? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an article 南山, a dab page with a non-English title that's composed solely of CJK characters. While 南山 has the same meaning in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, it has four different pronunciations depending on the language (not counting all the different variants of Chinese such as Cantonese and Taiwanese which are usually ignored). How would you propose to transliterate titles like that? -Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That page is redundant and has no place here on the English Wikipedia per this policy. Disambiguation is covered by Nanshan and Namsan and no English speaker will be looking for it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
There was a deletion request two years ago and the result was keep. And I just found out there's a whole category of articles like that for which there is no unambiguous way to transliterate. The category itself was nominated for deletion and the result was keep. So much for your "absolute consensus". -Zanhe (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Another example: 中山, which may transliterate to Chūzan, Sun Yat-sen, Nakayama, or Zhongshan. -Zanhe (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Without looking into it into too much detail, I'd suggest that there is most likely systemic bias and local consensus at play in those discussions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Why would there be a "local consensus" at an AfD, when AfDs are clearly advertised in a location well visible to all Wikipedia editors? Do you consider RfCs, RfAs and WP:ANI discussions to be local consensus as well? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"No English speaker will be looking for it"? Well, 南山 got a spike of 47 page views just on 5 July. It has been discussed repeatedly elsewhere, but one senario is when an English speaker finds a Chinese/Japanese/Korean name on a website and wants to find out what it refers to, but has no idea how to transliterate it. He copy-and-pastes the name into WP, and finds all possible answers he may be looking for. -Zanhe (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Robin, it is very bad practice to just label everything you don't want to know a systemic bias and local consensus. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for coming in on the middle of a debate without reading the discussion so far, but here’s my take: Non-English characters do not belong in article titles unless English-language sources primarily refer to the subject with such characters. It seems to be somewhat acceptable to use non-English characters to title pure disambiguation pages; but if the page gives further information such as the history of the subject (in this case, a variety of surnames), it should be considered an article, and it must have an English or anglicized title. This is so that English-speaking readers can read the title, or at least sound it out. —Frungi (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying using non-English characters to title disambiguation pages is somewhat acceptable, but using non-English characters in the disambiguation portion of the title is not ok, even when the very ambiguity is a result of the transliteration requirement. Don't they serve the same purpose? -Zanhe (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn’t say anything about any portions of the title. I’m saying articles (and their titles) in an English-language encyclopedia must cater to the English language. Personally, I don’t think DAB pages should use exotic characters in their titles, either, but it’s more understandable that they would in order to point to different transliterations, translations, or what have you. —Frungi (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I must say, using English titles on the disamb pages than the Chinese titles on the articles makes so much more sense than the other way around. Yes, the English wikipedia should cater to the English Language, but since the names are translated to English yet there are differences, we need a way to distinguish them. And please see above google scholar link, the English academic sources primarily uses the characters to refer to them because there's no other way around. And seriously, this is why we have all the original characters in all the transliterate articles to begin with. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What the English "academic" sources do is needs to be treated with caution. Specialist sources often use specialist notations or terms that would not be appropriate in a general encyclopedia. — Peter coxhead 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
See also WP:SSF. —Frungi (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I can only keep making the same point. If the article title uses Chinese characters, it cannot be input from a standard English keyboard and cannot be read by a screen reader to an English reader with a sight problem. By all means have redirects involving the Chinese characters (as we do for Ελλάδα for example) and even disambiguation pages, since the only people who need use them are people who need to disambiguate Chinese characters. But every monolingual English speaker should be able to enter the title of an article or have it read to them. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
And be able to read it. I’d wager that most native English speakers know even less about the Chinese language than I do, and a title with Chinese characters would be completely illegible to me. —Frungi (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Frungi and Peter, I must ask you if you really think NOT using the Chinese characters helps in ANY way better than using them. Yes, English users don't know how to read or input the characters, but the same goes for all mentioned suggestions. Choose the lesser of two evils, and in this case, using the meaning is not going to be more helpful than the Chinese character alternative, and the Chinese character alternative actually helps people who can and tries read them(including those who are at least taking the reasonable step to compare the character they have in hand with the one shown on screen). This is not violating WP:SSF, think of the character as a picture to help aid the users, not a foreign term they don't know. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think using Chinese characters in article titles of an English encyclopedia would hurt rather than help. Like I said, they’re completely illegible to most native English speakers. I’m sorry to draw this comparison, but it’s a little like insisting on using 40 px as the title instead of Prince (musician). Besides, the original characters would be included in the very first words of the text, which I would think should satisfy your concerns about a user comparing the characters. —Frungi (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We are not asking them to read the characters, but to do simple comparisons. It is different from your example which you don't have multiple musicians called Prince with different iconic logos. If someone searched for Li, the result page will have Li (李), Li (里), Li (利), etc. Which is pretty obviously a better direction than Li (surname meaning plum), Li (surname meaning alley), Li (surname meaning profit), etc. which makes no sense to people who don't know what those words means. The latter is simply offending to the Chinese language users and is plain wrong in most cases(since surnames are usually not related to any meaning). We don't even need a disamb page in this case if we use the Chinese characters as titles. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don’t like the translation disambiguation either. But I’m having a hard time imagining a situation where one would have the transliteration and the written form of a name without being able to enter the latter as a search term. Anyway, as far as actual workable solutions, I think the best we could do would be to have separate DAB pages (or articles) for each transliteration (Lì, etc.), and have a section in the page for each homophonous name (Lì#厲, etc.). I have no objections to using exotic characters in section headings. —Frungi (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems the possibility of a merged article is garnering some support as the only sensible way to deal with this. It was not without its supporters at the initial move request either... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Frungi, The situation you cannot imagine is called name cards, which business partners give out a lot. Robin, even if we have disamb pages, we still need to have to settle on what title we use for the individual articles, which the disamb page solves nothing of that sort. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 11:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, who is Robin? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, misread. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What I mean is, instead of having separate articles for each name, we’d just have one Lì article with a section on every name that’s transliterated as such, and a Lǐ article, and a Lí article. In other words, yeah, merges. And I think separating them by tonality is better than piling them all under Li (surname) (which should link to each of those three). —Frungi (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Most English users don't know how to type ǐ, ì, í, etc. as well, your arguments seems to be very biased on latin based languages over block letter based languages. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
English is a Latin-based language, so that’s kind of the idea. And it’s true that diacritics are still somewhat exotic to English (especially ǐ), but at least they’re readable by monolingual users. Of course, it’s still more readable without them, but they were just a suggestion, a proposed solution to a problem with no perfect solution. —Frungi (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think disambiguation by diacritic alone was sufficient. And surely most English-language sources don't use the diacritics when referring to someone's name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
My sandbox has a hastily thrown together mockup of what I had in mind for one of the transliterations. Not complete, but hopefully you get the idea. —Frungi (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Which brings us back to two of the initial problems. Firstly, English readers won't know which Li they are looking for as they are all commonly transliterated as "Li". Also, is the topic of the particular tone of Li on your mockup page notable even when combined? I think we need to merge all tones to a single page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Since Chinese tonality is integral to pronunciation, I would say yes. I can't counter your first point, but the reason I'm proposing separate mergers is that I worry a single merged article for all Lis would be unwieldy; I'm already concerned that a merged article on Lì alone would be too long. But merging, whether one or three, seems to me to be the only viable option for us. —Frungi (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Would it solve your concerns over length if we moved all the names to a separate List of people with the surname Li? I don't think disambiguation by diacritic alone is sufficient. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I support merging surnames originating in the same non-English language, and having the same transliteration, into a single article with a title like Li (Chinese surname). This discussion is occurring on the English Wikipedia; what works best for another language does not necessarily work best here. Also, so far as I understand, this will not present a problem for Wikidata if the titles of the proposed variations redirect to the corresponding sections of that main article, and the interwiki links are placed on those redirect pages. bd2412 T 11:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the English wikipedia, but can you show at least some respect on other people's names? They maybe homophones, but completely different things. Disamb page is still possibly reasonable, but whoever tries to push for a merge is just saying we should merge the articles of neptune and uranus, because they are both outer planets. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a faulty analogy if I've ever heard one. The problem is that they're represented identically in English. That simply cannot be helped. Merging the articles would overcome a technical limitation of the alphabet. —Frungi (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Two family names are completely different things, and thus should not be in the same article. We don't merge other dissimilar things into the same article just because they have the same spelling, why surnames? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
PS, the surname 李 is probably one of the most common Chinese surnames, listing out the notable people as disamb would already be a pretty big page. same goes for Wong, Ho and Chan. And Chan is like the only one I cannot think of a homophone —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 19:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there is no need to list all of the notable surname holders on a page about the surname. Compare Smith (surname), which links to a lengthy list maintained separately from the article. Incidentally, that article points out that there are different means by which people have come to have the surname, Smith, but we neither have nor need separate articles for every possible surname origin. bd2412 T 03:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This is an oft-repeated faulty representation of the purpose of English Wikipedia, whose goal should be to help English speakers understand concepts of foreign cultures using the English language, not to distort foreign concepts to fit into the mould of the English culture. And that's exactly what the merger proposal is about: treating Chinese surnames that are considered completely different in Chinese culture as if they were the same just because in the English culture they are treated identically. This proposal would do a serious disservice to English readers by giving them the false impression that the Chinese culture is no different from their own, at least when surnames are concerned. -Zanhe (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Or it might actually facilitate understanding the distinctions between these terms that in English are identical by treating them all together in a single article. older ≠ wiser 21:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
They are already treated all together in the same article Li. That's what dab pages are for. Merging distinct concepts into a same article as if they were variations of the same concept is misleading and harmful to the reader. -Zanhe (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The disambiguation page, as currently formulated, is of little to no help for an English speaker who knows nothing of what the characters mean. On the other hand, a page that explains and contrasts the distinctions, such as the examples that a couple of editors have provided, would be helpful for a reader with little or no familiarity with Chinese. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
And by the way, disambiguation pages such as Li are not articles. older ≠ wiser 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
@Zanhe & others: I understand very well that there are distinct surnames which are all usually transcribed as "Li" in the Latin alphabet as used in English. I understand that ideally there would be a single article for each such distinct surname, as they are different. But you must understand that, unless there is a change of the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, Chinese characters cannot be used to create titles for such separate articles. So you have three choices:
  1. Start a formal RfC on a request to change the MOS to allow Chinese characters in article titles. Then wait to see the outcome.
  2. Cooperate in finding some solution not involving Chinese characters which allows different titles for each Chinese surname.
  3. Accept a single article for each transcription, e.g. one article for "Li".
Keeping on arguing here for the use of Chinese characters is pointless. Unless and until the MOS is changed (which as you know I oppose), this is not an acceptable solution.
This has nothing to do with disrespect for Chinese culture. It's simply a technical fact about the impossibility of accurately representing Chinese characters in the basic Latin alphabet, which is all that English speakers should be required to read or have read to them or to input in the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If you do understand that each name is unique and deserves its own article, but allow a technical difficulty to prevent us from doing the right thing, I really don't think you have a true understanding of the fifth of Wikipedia's Five pillars. -Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
And one more thing, don't have the wrong impression that I have a personal agenda or something. I've written several hundred China-related articles and encountered many occasions where distinct Chinese names become ambiguous after transliteration, and have always tried my best to find ways to disambiguate without using Chinese. For example, Xiong Yan (elder) / Xiong Yan (younger), Duke Yǐ of Qi / Duke Yì of Qi, Duke Jing of Jin (Ju) / Duke Jing of Jin (Jiao) / Duke Jing of Jin (Jujiu), etc. However, when it comes to three different surnames that are transliterated as Li that originate from three different states that also transliterate as Li, I really cannot think of any better way to disambiguate other than using their original Chinese characters, and nor has anyone else after two weeks of discussion. -Zanhe (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The question is: is disambiguation the best way to deal with the problem... I don't think that it is. By having one single article about Li (Chinese name)... an article that is focused on the average English speaker and which informs him/her that there isn't just one Chinese name "Li" ... an article which can take the time to fully explain the individual histories and distinctions between the different Chinese names that are transliterated into English as "Li"... The English speaking reader is actually better served, and ends up being better informed about all those different names. Figuring out the best way to present information is just as important as figuring out what information to present. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort at finding a solution. As I mentioned before, merging all 8 different Li's into a single article may be fine in the short term when they are short stubs containing little information. But what happens when someone (possibly myself) expands them into full-fledged articles? Are we going to have a single article that contains 8 separate "origin and etymology" sections, 8 "history" sections, 8 "geographical distribution" sections, and 8 "list of notable people" sections? Eventually they'll need to be separated and we'll encounter the same disambiguation problem. That's why I think a policy solution is necessary. -Zanhe (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would probably combine the lists of notable people into one single list, but put it some sort of a table format so we could indicate which Li each person is associated with. You might be able to combine a lot of the other data into tables. Get creative. There are solutions that wouln't require splitting and disambiguating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to have a merged article at Li (Chinese surname) and if in the future there is some actual need to spin out articles on one of the names, to continue to use summary style in the parent article providing sufficient context to distinguish the various forms of the name (which after all, so far as the average English reader is concerned, is a single name, not multiple). I agree with Blueboar that there probably should be a single comprehensive list of people with the name as there would be nearly no way to determine which Li is which without knowing the Chinese characters, which we should not assume to be known to readers of the English Wikipedia. As for the title of to hypothetical spun-out articles, I'm still undecided what the best form of disambiguation would be. I'm slightly leaning towards disambiguation by tone (e.g., Lí, Lǐ, and Lì), but that still has some problems. To be honest, in my opinion, provided that there is a strong parent/summary article at an obvious title such as Li (Chinese surname), it almost doesn't matter how the more particular surname articles are titled. older ≠ wiser 03:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
A parent article containing spin out subpages is what I've been calling for from the beginning. I think this is one of the few things people here can agree on. As you said, if we have a strong parent article, people should have no problem finding the right sub-article from there if they want to learn more about the origins of 黎, 李, etc. Then the article title wouldn't be as important. The problem remains, though, on what we should title those subpages. If disambiguation by meaning, tone, and Chinese character are problematic, I guess, of all the options I listed on Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit")#Summary of the dilemma, disambiguation by Hundred Family Surnames rank is the most appropriate. _dk (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation by tone is an option I've always preferred over Chinese character. However, it only works in some cases as many different surnames have exactly the same tone. The main downside of the Hundred Family Surnames approach is that it's extremely obscure. I suspect there are probably only a handful of people in the entire world who would remember the exact position of each name in the Hundred Family Surnames. And it still doesn't work in all cases as some names are not included in it (though most of the common names are). -Zanhe (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
At least for numbering from HFS we have a one-to-one relation. Surname 4 is always going to be 李 while Lì can mean a number of different surnames, not to mention the difference in tone is not something that's obviously noticeable for English readers. Again I stress that the article title should be made unimportant if we make a strong summary page for all "Li"s - then we'd only need something, anything, just to title the subpages. If you look on the surnames articles on Chinese Wikipedia, the surname's ranking is one of the first things they put in the lead section and infobox. And most notable surnames are on the HFS anyways (the only notable exception I can think of for the moment is 鄺 Kuang (surname)). As a parallel case, nobody remembers the ranks of the Kangxi radicals, but the article for the "heart" radical 心 is at Radical 61 like all 200+ Chinese radicals on enwp. _dk (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A quick side question as it relates to WP:Verifiability (and in some cases WP:BLP) ... If we have separate articles, how does the typical English speaker know which article to place a person named Li in? How do we verify, for example, that Jet Li goes under Li(李) and not Li(利)? Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just cite any Chinese source or an English source that includes the person's name in Chinese (many do, especially academic ones). -Zanhe (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm going to keep this brief because there's been repeated restatement of the same basic problem and repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from the 2 or 3 editors opposed to optimal disambiguation. No one has yet given a coherent reason [typing isn't a coherent reason for any dab] why Li (surname 李 "plum") won't provide the maximum benefit both for User Group A the 90% of readers of an article on Chinese surnames interested in Chinese surnames, and User Group B the 10% of readers of an article on Chinese surnames interested in Chinese surnames, but unable, yet, to distinguish the character. The third User Group C - vehemently anti-Chinese surname readers who will never read the article but want to make it difficult for others frankly are a group we don't need to consider.
The proposals for a merger are unworkable, chaotic (setting en.wp at odds with interwiki) and frankly go right to the core of WP:COMPETENCE. An umbrella dab is fine (which is why an umbrella already exists at Li (surname) but any editor who cannot understand why Li (李) and Lí (黎) cannot be merged should not be in this discussion.
Resolute, Blueboar - you can use Li (surname)
Zanhe - you're correct that not all surnames are as easy to pick an English "shorthand" as Li (surname 李 "plum"), however an imperfect disambiguator can I believe be found from the Baijiaxing for all names that have been discussed so far - the trick is to pick one that isn't OR and doesn't make the history-informed reader wince.
Go to Wiktionary - it's possible that those who want to make the articles either difficult to find for the core user/reader group, or merge them into a meaningless random mess based on modern Beijing pronunciation, are going to carry the day here. In that case then maybe it's worth considering developing the surnames on Wiktionary instead? Wiktionary would be extremely cramped and restrictive and cannot carry encyclopaedic content, but maybe special pleading with Wiktionary's editors to have more substantial material there after having been forced off en.wp is an option. It's just a random idea, it probably wouldn't go the next two steps before toppling over.. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
On behalf of User Group C, I object to your lack of good faith. No one wants to make things more difficult; rather, some of us believe that allowing non-Latin forms of foreign names in article titles would make things more difficult. —Frungi (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a group who is "anti Chinese surnames"? No-one has argued that Chinese surnames shouldn't have articles, as far as I can tell. I agree with Fungi re good faith.
Repetition has been on both sides. The core issue has always been and remains whether Chinese characters should be allowed in the title of an article (article text and redirects are a different issue). You wrote typing isn't a coherent reason for any dab. I'm assuming that by "dab" here you meant the extra text after the word "Li". This suggests to me that you haven't heard what others have been saying. If the article title is Li (surname 李 "plum") it cannot be reached by typing it; it doesn't matter that the Chinese character is only in the parenthesised bit. By all means have Li (李) as a redirect. But don't have 李 in the article title. (And, as has been pointed out before, if "plum" is a sufficient disambiguator, you don't need the 李 as a disambiguator anyway.)
You wrote that editors like Resolute and Blueboar could use Li (surname). Yes, precisely: if Chinese characters are used, the overwhelmingly largest group of English Wikipedia users would only be able to access the individual articles via a link on a dab page. It's this which I, and editors with the same view, find undesirable (and which is against current WP guidelines). It has nothing to do with the characters being Chinese or a lack of interest in Chinese surnames; it has everything to do with their not being accessible.
I can only repeat what I said above: if you think you have a good case, start a formal RfC to have the MOS changed to allow Chinese characters in article titles. It would be good to have as wide an input as possible. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@Frungi, I started with good faith, but that was 2 weeks ago, you are getting my take on this now, after 2 weeks, the 2nd week merely observing. I hope and assume that everyone here belongs to Group B, all enthusiastically interested in Chinese surnames and who feel warm and cuddly when a Chinese character even if they can't understand it.
As regards "On behalf of User Group C" I was not expecting anyone to stand up on behalf of "readers who will never read the article" - how can I say this, "readers who will never read the article" means readers who will never read the article, and readers who will never read the article shouldn't be the primary consideration in fixing an article title. Some consideration needs to be shown to readers who will read the article, who are interested in Chinese surnames - providing help in disambiguation for both Group A and Group B.
@Peter coxhead - you may wish to link to where someone has said something I've missed please As I understand it the reason that typing isn't a coherent reason for or objection to any dab is that no one types any dab, e.g. no one types Independence Day (1996 film), people type the terms they know "Independence Day..." and the RH autocomplete or Google does the rest, setting out the choices to select. In this case even readers who know Chinese characters - Group A, are unlikely to type 李 (because it means having to CTRL + SHIFT and type Li, then click through 100 characters to select), but they won't have to, because Jimbo has already says it is okay to set the "rules" aside for an exceptional case. [Note - This is an argument from WP:RETAIN/WP:STATUSQUO, no need to invoke Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem since that is how the articles were and are].
@Anyone/everyone, I've made my comment and have no further input. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I find the tone of this rather offensive. The groupings and percentages have been pulled out of thin air (or perhaps some bodily orifice). This is the English Wikipedia and for the average reader there is no readily discernible difference WHATSOEVER in these names. I continue to think that a combined article specifically addressing the Chinese surnames is the best approach. If articles are spun out from that page, a strong summary article should remain the starting point for the majority of readers. older ≠ wiser 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@Bkonrad my "I have no further input" is not an open invitation for an editor to underneath the comment make a remark about my viewpoint coming out of my "bodily orifices" - the 90/10 guesstimate could just as easily have been 60/40 but for your information it is not pulled out of my anus (or did you mean nostrils?) but based on an interpretation of (a) Talk activity on the articles in question, (b) the content of printed books in English related to Chinese names, and also non-wikipedia webpages on the subject. As for the third group - the group who won't read the articles - how is the existance of a group who won't read the articles pulled out of a bodily orifice"? And why is the existence of readers who won't read certain articles "offensive" but saying an editor - when I washed my hands last week the editor who had actually been working on sourcing the articles in question - an editor's viewpoint on likely readership comes out of his "bodily orifices" is not offensive? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Bandying about made up figures as if they actually meant something of significance is poor form, at best. Making belittling presumptions about who reads articles with not even a shred of anything otther than these made up speculations is definitely offensive. And whether you pulled them out of your nose or you anus makes no difference. older ≠ wiser 00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Bkonrad, repeating the anus comment doesn't make it better. "Bandying about" "made up figures" is your take on it. "Making belittling presumptions" is your take on it. "Made up speculations" is your take on it. I have cited (a) Talk activity on the articles in question, (b) 1 and 2. I stand by the observation that readers of any article are generally those with an interest in the subject. This is a specialist subject of interest to a small group of readers and article contributors. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed it is my take on it and your claims are nothing more than your take on it, which you have elaborated on at great length, but going on at length adds no more credibility to the stuff that you make up. older ≠ wiser 03:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How do reliable sources treat this issue?

One of the foundational premises of wikipedia is that we follow reliable sources. Now, how do reliable sources treat names like "Li", especially when there are multiple versions? I have yet to find a source that does not at some point use a chinese character to disambiguate in these cases. For example:

In reviewing the sources, we would be very hard pressed to find a source that was talking about 5 Chinese chung surnames with different origins, that did not attempt to use a chinese character to distinguish one from the other.

Yes, WP:UE is a policy, and we really don't need to keep on repeating it. We know. However, WP:IAR is *also* a policy. There was a long-standing, if silent, consensus to keep these articles disambiguated by their characters. This should not be overturned in the interest of purity of "english" in the special cases where chinese characters are the most clear disambiguators.

We have to think in terms of a user, and the user's experience. Suppose John wants to look up his friend Pat Li - so he types "Li" into the search engine, and he ends up at Li. Here, he sees a bunch of *different* Li pages. If he has a copy of Pat's name written in chinese, he could easily "match" the character and find the right article, or go to Li_(surname) and learn something. It is highly unlikely, OTOH, that John or Pat would know about which number this character is in the book of 100 surnames, or what it used to, or currently, MEANS. Such meanings are contested, apocryphal, and sometimes irrelevant - and as such are best left to the article. I'm now of the opinion that

  • Li (surname 李)
  • Lì (surname 厲)
  • Lì (surname 栗)

etc. would be the cleanest, and easiest for the reader - as the only thing they could reasonably disambiguate upon is the original chinese character - the character is, by definition UNAMBIGUOUS.

All of the arguments about "we can't type that" should fall on deaf ears - wikipedia is littered with article titles you cannot type without knowing a bit of unicode (quick: can any of you type Æ?) - and search/search completion is broadly sufficient. If you want to link to a given article, copy/paste works very well.

Of COURSE a robust survey article should exist at Li (surname), and I'd even be fine with less-notable Li names simply being grouped/described there without much issue. But as soon as you have two Li's (or Chungs, or Wangs, or whatever) that cannot be otherwise distinguished through the transcription and that are significant enough to merit articles on their own, the Chinese character is the most natural disambiguator. It causes no harm to the user, and makes it easier for those who are looking for a particular "Li" (which is a vast minority) to find what they are looking for. Cramming these notable names all together into one page, just to avoid the anathema of (gasp!) a chinese character in an article title, when we already have titles like Hávarðar saga Ísfirðings, and the name articles themselves are littered with chinese characters doesn't make sense. Why we are being so protective of the sacred title space? I too once felt that latin-derived characters with accents were ok for titles, but cryllic/chinese/hindi/etc should be barred, and in general, I still think they should be. It's just, this is a *very* special exception - one that noted diacritic-a-phobe Jimbo even agreed with.

I also think, for simplicity's sake, that we should create a single List of people with the surname Li article, which could be grouped by "character", with a section at the top for "unknown". That way, if you're looking for all of the Li's, you can find them on one page, and amateurs could add "Bruce Lee" to the "unknown" section and then the experts could move him to the right place.

Note: I am not suggesting we *always* use a chinese character after a chinese name - rather that we ONLY do so when it's the best disambiguator; in this case, these articles are literally ABOUT a chinese character.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is sense. Thank you User:Obiwankenobi (though the consensus of the original discussion was to ALSO have "plum" "chestnut" to assist Chinese learners). NB As regards Lee (Irish surname) see Talk:Li (surname). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I felt that way too, but I think someone made a good argument that the modern meanings of these names which share a character with another word are sometimes irrelevant to the origin of the name (same with "Sandy (meaning full of sand)", whereas Sandy actually derives from Alexander). The various modern and ancient meanings could be detailed in the article itself, but choosing "one" for the title risks choosing something that some might find offensive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Suppose John wants to look up his friend Pat Li, and John does not happen to have a copy of Pat's name written in Chinese? I think this is as often as not going to be the case for people looking up "Li" who do not already have at least a general sense of Chinese name origins. In that case, isn't John best served by first coming to an article (not a disambiguation page) titled Li (Chinese surname), which provides an overview of the various origins, characters, and transliterations of Chinese surnames commonly transliterated in English as "Li", which does not share a page with 50 other meanings of "Li" unrelated to Chinese surnames? bd2412 T 02:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Then John reads the article for Li (surname) and be satisfied, or if he wants to know more he can call up his friend Pat and ask which Li his name actually is and go into the appropriate subpage. Having a summary article for all the Li surnames and having specific articles for each notable Li aren't mutually exclusive. We can have both. _dk (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this method is that you create a content fork, and soon the information would be moved from the "umbrella" article, to the sub-page, thus losing focus and usefulness to the English reader who no longer has all the information regarding the differences in one place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection to having a main article summarizing all names with this transliteration, and subarticles on specific names, so long as the main article is not reduced or diminished when the subarticles are expanded. There is always some duplication of information between main articles and subarticles. bd2412 T 03:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I do think this is going the right way about it. WP:UE isn't about using English (or Latin characters for that matter) always, but about looking at how English language sources refer to the given subject and try to emulate that in Wikipedia titles. If it is generally the case that English language sources will use the Chinese character to distinguish between these surnames, I think it is every way within the spirit of WP:UE and all other parts of WP:AT for Wikipedia to use the Chinese characters to disambiguate the articles about those surnames. But I am not sure the evidence provided here is comprehensive enough to make a final conclusion about general practices in English language sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
If we need to check out more books, I can stop by the library - send me some titles. There are books I found which (briefly) discuss chinese surnames and that do *not* use chinese characters; however every book I found that discussed the names in detail, or had to distinguish between multiple names with the same transliteration, always uses Chinese characters to disambiguate. And why not? It's natural, books have no rules like "ENGLISH ONLY!!!", so when it makes sense, they throw the Chinese character in - that's the original form of the name, and the only unambiguous way to write it. For the record, I don't speak chinese and am not chinese, but I do know how to compare little pictures to one another. I'm not arguing for titles like Beijing (北京), we're literally talking about perhaps 100-200 articles in the whole of wikipedia that would fall under this special exception. I am stunned by the amount of e-ink spent on this issue to date. If all of us just got back to adding references to the various "Li" articles we'd be in a much better place...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The unique issue with those characters is that English readers are likely to not be able to distinguish between them with out really looking closely. The purpose of disambiguation is to easily disambiguate between two like named articles. Using foreign characters does not seem to fit the bill. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Which is why the RM had a slim majority for Li (surname 李 "plum"), Lì (surname 栗 "chestnut"). The sticking point is not that English-only readers be served, but that Chinese learners also be served. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
it's a good point, but lets consider use cases. What's the use case for a reader who wants to find a very particular 'Li' variant, but doesnt have the chinese character at hand? What info *does* she have to help her? "Plum" or "plum tree"? Unlikely - in fact its much more likely she has a character she saw in a book or website (remember, what do RS do?) We havent found any sources that talk about the names only with english-language-meanings - so any source the reader is looking at will likely have the chinese character, not the (buggy/disputed) translation, nor the rank-in-surnames-book (and not all names are in that book). And what happens if they click the wrong one? They go back and find another. What happens when I choose the wrong icelandic saga? Also, once you try,its really quite easy to distinguish chinese characters. Humans are amazing at pattern recognition, and small chinese kids (and more and more american ones) can tell the difference between simple chinese characters. I do think the list of people should be unified, as i can see a use case for "which people are named li" without knowing a bit about characters. But if i want to research the origins of the family name of my grandmother Li from Lijiang, wont i have to go back to the chinese writing at some point? We have incredibly complex math articles full of specialized symbols many of which i dont understand,but if i'm doing mathematics research, i should learn a bit. Same goes if i'm reading about chinese names or chinese characters - at some point i will have to deal with the characters themselves. (And the articles in question are chock full of them) If as some assert, the chinese names in the titles were so confusing to users, how come none of them ever complained over 6 years? Where is the feedback, the help-desk questions, the confused talk-page comments? Why do english-language books on chinese names not eschew but rather embrace the characters? The main issue here, which i think those less familiar with chinese may not understand, is that it is a completely different system of language - its not just a different alphabet or a different way to spell or write, rather it is a wholly different conceptual framework for a language. I think Wittgenstein once argued chinese could be a universal language, as the symbols encode pure meaning and say nothing about pronounciation.. As such, any move from chinese to english is bound to run into namespace collisions. Now, we can often disambiguate these through other means (invented example: suppose two chinese words both transliterated as Tang, one meaning a city in Yunnan and the other a dynasty - in such a case we would do Tang (city) and Tang (dynasty) because the english language reader would know which Tang he was looking for.) But if i'm looking for a particular Li, amongst several surnames, what information am I most likely to have that can help me, besides the character itself? The landing page/article could provide more context in front of each link, but we dont need to clutter the titles themselves with dubious modern meanings,books indexes, or other such clutter. A simple picture suffices. Fwiw, before coming to this discussion, i'm not even sure i was aware there were 7 Li's, so i've learned a lot already.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Obiwan, I for one appreciate your contribution of what-do-real-books-do, and also your keeping focus on the readership being the readers who will read rather than those who will not read.
I still remain of the impression that some of those contributing are not distinguishing:
A. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation - for homonyms which are not synonyms
B. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy - for synonyms which are not homonyms
The distinction between the basic axis of dab pages (homonyms) and the basic axis of articles (synonyms) is a fairly basic one for wp, yet it seems some want to abandon it in this case. It should guide how we handle:
Lee (English surname) also spelled Lea, Leigh
Lee (Irish surname) from Ó Laoidaigh, MacLee
Lee (Korean surname) also spelled Yee
Lee (Chinese surname) also spelled Li...actually a fork of Li (surnames) plural. Li (surname) is fine in the same way that any other dab page is fine. The worst possible outcome here would be merging of highly notable articles. Even using Baijiaxing numbers is better than that. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion on Chinese characters

  • Support inclusion of Chinese characters as clarifiers in the title. Above discussion shows that other solutions are cumbersome, and that doing it this way is supported by expert reliable sources. That in my book is reason enough to make an exception to the English policy. I am not a Chinese speaker, so yes this requires me to pay attention to glyphs I would generally not distinguish, but if that is the Right Thing for me to do to learn a sensible way to navigate the facts in this area, I (and other English speakers) should be expected to do so. Martinp (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments If there is to be consensus on this, both "sides" must recognize the validity of the others' arguments.
  • All of the arguments about "we can't type that" should fall on deaf ears - wikipedia is littered with article titles you cannot type without knowing a bit of unicode (quick: can any of you type Æ?) - and search/search completion is broadly sufficient. This is a fallacious argument, as I have pointed out before. You don't need to be able to type "Æ" because there's an obvious visual equivalent "AE" which you can type instead and which can be arranged to be a redirect. The same applies to other non-ASCII characters used in titles.
  • we're literally talking about perhaps 100-200 articles in the whole of wikipedia that would fall under this special exception I suspect that once the MOS specifically allowed this "special" exception, people would come along with other cases where "special" symbols should be allowed.
Having made these points, I think that having a reasonably comprehensive article at Li (Chinese surname) which gives enough information to readers not wanting to read or type Chinese, plus articles at "Li (symbol)" might (just might!) be the least worst solution. I don't see any point in titles like "Lì (symbol)" because these still need redirects at plain "Li (symbol)" in order to get autocompletion to work for those who don't know how to type the i with a diacritic, and once you have the Chinese character, you don't need the additional disambiguation of the tone marker. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. These seem to all be specialist publications regarding linguistics and origins of names that are not actually representative of how the English language treats these names. For a reliable source on how these names are treated in everyday use, and the way that these names are most familiar to an English-reading audience, look in a phone book. We do not differentiate. A single article that discusses the names in context with each other is still the most useful way to go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The phone book is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Relying on expert sources is wholly appropriate. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That is what I was going to say too. It is laughable to suggest that Wikipedia should dumb down to the level of a phonebook. Besides, I checked several sources listed by Obiwan above, and they all appear to be targeted toward the general English speaking audience, no specialist knowledge required. I've yet to see a single reliable source that treats disctinct Chinese surnames as the same simply because they are transliterated the same way in English. -Zanhe (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
        • But it's incontrovertible as an example as how most English-speaking people treat these surnames, and the perception of them to someone unknowledgeable in the ways of Chinese characters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
          • And your suggestion is that Wikipedia should pander to the misinformed perception of those people, instead of helping them become more knowledgeable about foreign cultures? -Zanhe (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
            • No, my suggestion is that the best way to present the information so that they can become more knowledgable is on a single page illustrating the differences. If we have individual articles, the information is not in the same place and thus its usefulness is less apparent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, but the problem is that phone books do not try to distinguish between the different origins of the names, while we have to. You can find thousands of English language sources which will not try to distinguish between the different forms of these similar sounding names, but we have to, to be able to make any sensible article, beyond just a list of names. You cannot describe the history and etymology of these names, if you don't specify which one you are talking about. So we have to look at sources which actually try to distinguish between the different names, to arrive at a sensible answer for how we should disambiguate them.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, but we should distinguish between them on the same page, especially seeing as some of them won't be notable in their own right. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
              • I think the idea here is to have a comprehensive article at Li (surname), and only to have the Li (chinese character) articles be taken into use when the sections on the individual surname grow too large, and and need to be split off.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
                • It's the splitting off that causes a problem. Once all the information is split to a separate article, it is no longer all available at the same page, and thus the article becomes less useful for the reader to differentiate. However, it seems unlikely that there there would be so much information about a surname that would warrant this anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • The way sections usually are split off into separate will result in that there still will be a sizable summary of the article's content in the section that it came from (See WP:SPLIT).TheFreeloader (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • "However, it seems unlikely that there there would be so much information about a surname that would warrant this anyway." - There always will be a day when Li (surname meaning "plum") becomes as long as Yuan (surname) (which only deals with one surname, "袁"), after all it is the most common Chinese surname, one of the most common surnames in the world, and exponentially more common than Yuan (袁). It might be next week, next month, or next year, but it will eventually get there. Someone just needs to find the time and effort into writing it up, using reliable sources. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support having a central article about all the "Li" surnames and disambiguating to "Li (李)", "Li (黎)" etc. I didn't come to this decision lightly, as I'm generally against the use of Chinese characters in titles. But looking at reliable sources shows that this is indeed the normal way scholarly English distinguishes these names (and it is scholarly English we should be following here, not phone books). The central article about all the Li surnames is essential to provide basic information for those who can't read (and, usually, input) Chinese. Such people can then learn to distinguish the characters if they wish to understand the surnames better, or, if not, stop right there at the central article and go no further. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this method is that you create a content fork, and soon the information would be moved from the "umbrella" article, to the sub-page, thus losing focus and usefulness to the English reader who no longer has all the information regarding the differences in one place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Rob, I agree that this might happen, but this may indeed be the least worst solution. No better solution has been suggested; like Heimstern Läufer I'm reluctant to adopt it but there doesn't seem to be an ideal solution. The talk page of Li (Chinese surname) could be given a prominent box at the top summarizing and linking to this discussion and then editors need to be vigilant to prevent information being removed.
If this solution is adopted, it should be made clear that this is an issue unique to Chinese names, not e.g. geographical places with the same transcribed names but written with different characters. It's unique to names, I think, because in a literate bureaucratic society a name is how it is written, not how it is pronounced or what its origin is. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Would there actually be so much information about a surname that would warrant a separate article? There's only so much you can write about a name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before, if those who have kept arguing here for adding Chinese characters to article titles had created a huge article at Li (Chinese surname) which obviously needed splitting, they would have had a better case. If we adopt the suggested solution, the onus is on them to demonstrate that there is enough information to make an article on each surname viable. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Even the largest one amounts to about 2 paragraphs. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The length of an article has nothing to do with whether it can make a separate article; it's whether it's a separate topic that counts. And reliable sources treat these surnames separately. That they are not distinguishable in English writing does not make them not separate names when reliable sources reflect that they are. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
But it seems pretty much agreed that we should have an umbrella article. It would be pointless to split this off to a lot of stubs just for the sake of it. Names in themselves are not inherently notable, but as a combined article it would pass muster. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I made it clear that it's not "just for the sake of it"; it's because the names are different names (as confirmed by reliable sources) and because a central one is necessary to explain this to non-Chinese readers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but say we have a central article with a couple of paragraphs on each "Li". Where are we disambiguating to? There wouldn't be enough to warrant a split as the information currently stands. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Rob, almost every common Chinese surname has an unbroken, documented history of at least 2,000 years, and some more than 3,000. In China entire books are published about individual surnames. Although many articles are in a poor shape right now, there's no doubt that a feature-length article can be written for each name, if someone's willing to put the effort into it. Even right now many articles already contain enough info to make it impractical to combine them with others, such as Zhao (surname), Qian (surname), Ye (surname), Shěn (surname), as well as the one that you recently moved to Li (surname meaning "plum") without obtaining consensus. -Zanhe (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
How many times to you intend to repeat this? Consensus favoured an option where Chinese characters were not used and we needed something to ambiguate further from "surname", "Chinese surname", etc.[2] I merely followed another's lead on which method to use.[3] --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
yeah, I agree. A cursory perusal of sources I did above easily found enough material for robust articles on several surnames, and I don't doubt at all that if we went to Chinese-language sources you could write a Yuan (surname) article for many of these Li's. It's not just about Li, or about the particular state of these articles right now, it's about getting consensus to revert back to the long- standing consensus that an exception to MOS can be made in the very special cases where the character itself is the best and only reasonable disambiguator. The proposal to combine in one just seems like a bandaid to avoid the problem, but we will have to face it eventually, so we may as well do so now. You would never propose to put together any two of the articles Zahne notes above, no matter what they 'sound' like in English, so we should not force that for Li. I do concede that a few stubs could remain merged until they grow, but we should keep spun out right now those which are likely to be big, and that includes at least 2 or 3 Li's.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you point me to the "long standing consensus"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
silence is a form of consensus. These articles were placed at titles with Chinese chars by consensus, and remained there without dispute for many years.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There can only be tacit consensus if there is no discussion. We had a discussion, and now consensus would appear to favour an option where Chinese characters are not used unless there are no other avenues open to us.[4] We have alternative suggestions, so we should be exploring those. Whilst I personally favour a single article, I think the compromise to be had here is individual article when necessary, but disambiguated in plain English. I think most here would be on board with this, if for no other reason than to get on with our lives ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree we should get on with our lives, and if a reasonable English dab could be found I'm all for it. However, the translations are a poor solution, for reasons outlined much more eloquently by others wiser than I above. Sandy ("full of sand") comes to mind. There was a previous discussion that moved these articles, where they remained, so in spite of recent discussion there was an older consensus. We're now muddled but I think the appeal to reliable sources and how they're treated in same is the way forward, and my research indicates its almost always by character.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
What about the numbered surname method, with a descriptor when no number available? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
If such numbers were well known, and present for every name, I would consider it. But (a) the specific ranking of such names is not well known, even amongst Chinese themselves (is Wang #54 or #67?) and (b) Not all names are in that book.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I would put it this way... while there may be an argument for saying that a silent consensus existed for including the Chinese characters as a disambiguator, we have to remember that Consensus can change... and based on the recent discussions, I would say that there is good evidence to say that consensus has changed on the issue. That said... it would probably a good idea to confirm exactly how far the consensus has changed, by holding a Wiki-wide RFC on the issue. Right now, the discussion has been between a relatively small group of people, endlessly repeating the same arguments to each other (with neither "side" really listening to the concerns and suggestions of the other "side") ... So... Let's broaden the discussion, and find out what people who have not already stated an opinion think. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have not participated in the discussion, but I support the use of chinese characters in titles as disambiguation, I would support a solution like the one suggested by Obi-Wan[5].User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a strong central Li (surname) article and disambiguation, where necessary, with Chinese characters. I've been following this issue from the sidelines for a while, waiting for a truly convincing argument that disambiguating in English is preferable, because, like many here, I believe that we should disambiguate whenever possible using English in order to maximize article accessibility. Obiwan has convinced me, however, that in this unique situation, there is no satisfactory way to disambiguate entirely in English. The translations and numbering systems are either inaccurate, obscure, or otherwise unhelpful, and not generally used in reliable sources.

    That said, disambiguation is only needed if the articles themselves are needed. If everything can be handled at the central article, that might be preferable. Use Li (Chinese characters) as redirects to the various sections in the article until there's enough info for a split.

    And a final observation - the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn here is between using non-English characters as titles versus as disambiguators. In all the proposed surname articles/subarticles, the title of each of the articles is Li, not Chinese character. The Chinese characters are being suggested only as disambiguators. The purpose of disambiguating is to distinguish two identical titles. In this case, the best, most recognizable way to do so happens to be with non-English characters. Dohn joe (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - you put it very well - the title is in roman script, and the chinese character would only serve to disambiguate/clarify which one we're talking about.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Any parenthectical disambiguator still forms part of the article title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The root problem is that the average English language reader can not tell one Chinese character from another unless they are placed side by side. We can compare two characters and say "yes I see a difference between them", but we can not recognize them on their own. Thus, separately, they don't work to actually disambiguate. Together, however, they do. Hence the idea that they need to be presented in one single article. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I largely agree. Which is why there needs to be a strong central article on all the Lis, and only split individual names out if there's enough content. And how about this - for any individual Li surname article, we include a hatnote to the effect of "For an overview of all Li surnames, please see Li (surname)"? So if anyone lands on an individual page first and is confused, we can send them to the central article. Dohn joe (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree as well. Any Li (character) names should have a hatnote back to the main page. Searching on Li (surname) or Li (name) should bring you to the surname article, which would be a survey article, giving a brief overview of all of the Li's. Some of them - though not necessarily all - would then have links out to a separate page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
So instead of a simple dab page, the central article would be a WP:SETINDEX article about a set of different surnames that share the same English spelling. I think that's a good balanced approach. -Zanhe (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see the central article as a full-fledged article that treats all of the surnames, and then only as necessary, sub-articles could be spun-out with the parent article retaining a summary of the spun-out articles. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel like there is a rough consensus evolving here to have a robust article at Li (surname), which summarizes all of the different Li's - this would be the target landing page for anyone searching to learn about the name Li. Some (or many) of them will not merit separate articles. It will essentially be a summary-style article, with a few robust sub-articles for major "Li" names. The only sticking point is, if we do spin out certain Li's (or other Chinese names in the future), can we use the character to disambiguate? given that most links to such pages will be from Li (surname), we can describe them in much more detail in the link (than would be put in the title), such as
--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Obiwankenobi, This is basically back to a longer variant of the original RM consensus per 65.94.79.6's original optimal solution Li (surname 李 "plum") from Lì (surname 栗 "chestnut"), given that WP China editors need to carefully sort something better than "plum" for some names. Have you seen any argument for not having the character Li (surname __ "plum") from Lì (surname __ "chestnut") that Chinese-reading editors should take note of? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Obi please drop me a note on my talk page. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting use of the word "consensus". --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I think we have a rough consensus to merge, allowing breakout articles if and when necessary, but I too still think we have a sticking point on the use of Chinese characters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
On the larger issue... I would say the policy should be "Don't use Chinese characters in a title"... with the understanding that every policy has occasional exceptions, and that WP:Ignore all rules is also a policy - and can be applied if an exception really needs to be made. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I mean whether we use Chinese characters in this specific case. I think it's clear that there is no question of changing the policy on this issue! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If we have a specific case, we have to change the policy to reflect we have consensus to do it in specific cases like this. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Something could be added to WP:NC-CHINA about this issue though, if only in the special case of disambiguating surnames.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If that is what we decide to do, then yes, if only as a reminder that we shouldn't do it elsewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I would say don't use non-English characters in article titles is more appropriate if you're writing up a guideline/policy and don't want Wikipedia to be labelled with soemthing. But we do treat different bits of non-English differently, and we shouldn't. All non-English should be treated the same, otherwise, there is something smelly. Only standard English characters and standard English punctuation should be allowable. The initial sentence of the article can make clear what characters are used otherwise. Indeed, if we can restrict it to only the characters transmittable by Morse Code, it'd be for the best. (allowing for upper and lowercase, additionally); obviously, native language redirects, ASCII art redirects (like what you find in Music) etc, should exist, and where multiple articles occur, a disambiguation page would be the result. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, we should also require that only English language sources be used to determine article names when sufficient number of English language reliable sources exist. Whatever styling used in English should be preferred over native language sources, regardless of what language the original language is. (provided the characters used conform to what I outlined a bit earlier) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Marking tone

While the Chinese writing system isn't entirely sound based, the transliteration systems aren't either. They don't catch tone. So is there a standardized way to show tone in transliterations? If so, this could go a long way in reducing confusion. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Tone marks are already being used in differentiating names when possible. For example, Lí (surname), Shēn (surname), Shěn (surname), Jī (surname), etc. However, as mentioned above, tone marks solve only part of the problem. We still have to deal with distinct names that share the same transliteration and tone. -Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure that tone marks are appropriate in the title of an article. Tone is a matter of pronunciation (which we usually explain in a parenthetical in the first sentence of the article) and meaning (which is also usually explained in the text of the article). I understand that the tonal nuances involved with Chinese words (especially names) can be important... but that should all be explained in the text of the article, and not in the title of the article. I think the root problem here may be that people are trying to have an English language (ie non-tonal) title convey the same information that the (tonal) word in Chinese conveys. It just isn't appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's a tradeoff. Using tones can solve some of the ambiguities, thus reducing the need to use Chinese characters for disambiguation. On the other hand, the letters with tone diacritics, though Latin-based, are still unfamiliar to English speakers and most of them have no idea how to input them. -Zanhe (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Tone markers should not be used to disambiguate articles, since there should be a redirect from the title without the diacritic, i.e. Lí (surname) should have a redirect at Li (surname). So they don't really help. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
There's a numeric tone marker in Pinyin. See pinyin#Numerals in place of tone marks and Tone number -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment as previous discussion the late 20th Century Beijing pronunciation is only a random point in time and geography anyway, so Beijing tones add some value, but not much. These articles can only be distinguished by including both 李 (for character-recognising users) and "plum" (for non-character recognising users). There is no other solution if we intend to serve all users. And any solution that refuses to serve all users is user-unfriendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Снова в СССР

Considering our discussion on UE (which I've gotten lost with, since it's pretty long, intersecting, and hard to keep track of now) "Снова в СССР" has come up for renaming, so you may be interested with talk:Снова в СССР -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's inevitable that there will be another discussion at Концерт next. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion at talk:Ћ now ; and per your premonition, talk:Концерт -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on partially disambiguated titles

An RfC about the partially disambiguated page names guideline (WP:PDAB) is currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#WP:PDAB. As it's related to article titles, those involved here may be interested in participating. -- tariqabjotu 19:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Венијамин Мачуковски писмо

This may be of interest to you, as it's related to other non-article page concerns for page titles already all over this talk page. see File talk:Венијамин Мачуковски писмо 1872.png -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 6 (June 2013)

Closed. Apteva (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarify WP:POVTITLE?

In Talk:2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#Requested_move and the continuing discussion down the page, there is disagreement as to whether WP:POVTITLE is applicable. A lot of reliable sources describe the events as a coup, but it's not a proper name like the Boston Massacre or the Corrupt Bargain, where the name is used even by those who say things like "the Corrupt Bargain was not a corrupt bargain". Should WP:POVTITLE be clarified, or supplemented with a link to an essay? --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the policy should make clear that the question of whether a non-neutral term should be used in a titles hinges on the quality of the alternatives available. If a good alternative exists, the non-neutral term should be avoided. If not, it should not. In my opinion WP:POVTITLE really should be viewed as a on equal footing with the five naming criteria, having neither vetoing-power over the criteria, nor being a mere afterthought for special cases.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to clarify the policy. At this point, it is too soon for this event to have a settled commonly used proper name. Anything we call it at this point will be a descriptive title (and descriptive titles must be neutral). So it simply comes down to a) forming a consensus as to whether the term "coup d'état" is neutral or not, and b) determining if what occurred in Egypt meets the definition of a coup d'état. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Back at the Egyptian coup talk page, the distinction between proper names and descriptions was almost completely ignored. The argument was basically 'it's a coup; sources call it a coup; POVTITLE licenses calling it what the sources call it even if it's POV; therefore end-of-discussion'. (Well actually, most of the commenters didn't get past the first clause.) I looked at POVTITLE, didn't immediately find language to quote at them, and went off to other pages about POV and disputes -- missing the obvious next section. Describing it as a coup is "common" in the sources. It's described that way in a majority of reliable sources. Then the section moves on to talk about redirects. If I make that mistake, others well may also.

I suggest that we modify the first sentence to say "proper name", thus: When the subject of an article is commonly referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). . Thoughts on this possible change? --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, this is one reason why I dislike shortcuts... they encourage people to just read one sub-section and ignore the sub-sections around it. It is never a good idea to read just one part of a policy.
That said, I think it wasn't completely your fault here. You were misled because the POVTITLE tag was misplaced ... since a title can be either a name or a description, the short cut "POVTITLE" should have pointed you to the entire Neutrality in article titles section, and not just to the Non-neutral but common names sub-section (which has the shortcut "POVNAME"). I have fixed that by moving the tag. Do you think this simple shifting of the shortcut would have helped in your situation? Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Good solution. I think that would have helped. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, we do need further clarification. Closure of the Egyptian coup RM was explicitly based on the premise that WP:POVTITLE was applicable, i.e. that "2013 Egyptian coup d'etat" is a name rather than a description. I can't see any basis for considering it a name, and no one in favor of "coup" seems to see any need to provide any such basis. We're at an impasse. I won't be around much for about a week starting tomorrow evening, but (unless I run into a shiny object) I'll do an essay on name vs description when I get back. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we clarify that we can use a term in a descriptive title if it is commonly used in reliable sources with the same connotation to refer to the topic. --B2C 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's already clear that we can use a POVNAME in related titles, as in "Political impact of the Boston Massacre". What may need clarification is why, and how that extends to descriptive terms in descriptive titles. My understanding is that Wikipedia should always take a neutral point of view, and the reason we can use a these names is that they do not express a point of view, not because they're common. It matters that they're "common", not in the sense that they're abundant, but in the sense that they're shared: they're used not only by people who agree with the POV the word would normally express, but also by people who don't. To call something a lower-case-m massacre is POV; to call something the Boston Massacre isn't -- precisely because the name "Boston Massacre" is part of the common language shared by people with different opinions on it. The criterion for deciding whether a term can be used is whether it makes something POV. Neither a title nor an article is allowed to be POV. But an article normally can give due weight to all notable points of view, and a title can't. So I propose we clarify that we can't use a term in a descriptive title just because it is frequently used in reliable sources with the same connotation to refer to the topic. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Order of countries in articles regarding their common border

I ended up on Norway–Sweden border and wondered if there actually is a guideline regarding how to name articles regarding border. In this case, should Norway be stated before Sweden? →AzaToth 20:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Norway–Sweden border" is contained in Category:Borders, and "Norway–Sweden relations" is contained in Category:Bilateral relations. The same decision might be applied to both categories. Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations might already have a guideline on the matter, for one or both of those categories.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC) and 21:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd say default to alphabetical. Except on tuesdays. Then, reverse-alphabetical. Or, we could just go by preponderance of sources, but I assume that will depend on which sources you're asking (Norwegian sources will call it the Norway-Sweden boundary, while Swedish sources will call it the opposite...)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, alphabetical seems to obtain, at least here: Category:Bilateral_relations_of_Georgia_(country) (the only one I looked at). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Virginia AzaToth, there is a guideline—Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Order of names in title:

Where multiple geographic names occur in a title, the names should be placed in alphabetical order unless there is a clear reason for another order. Examples: France–United States relations, but Turks and Caicos Islands or Kura–Araxes culture (both established names).

—sroc 💬 23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nguyễn or Nguyen?

Talk:Nguyễn#Requested_move --B2C 06:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Do article titles that include proper names need to follow standard grammatical rules?

It is a standard grammatical rule that when including place names in prose, qualifiers are set off with commas. For example: "He took a trip to Springfield, Illinois, to see his mother." Should or should not this rule apply likewise to article titles, at least when the article titles are not proper names? Powers T 19:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Um... a place name like Springfield, Illinois is a proper name... isn't it? Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Springfield is the proper name for the city; Illinois is the proper name for the state. Springfield, Illinois is not the name of the city; it is a reference to the city with additional geographical context.

As a test, ask random people either of the following two questions:

  1. What city are we in?
  2. What is the name of the city we are in?
I find I get significantly different answers to these two seemingly similar questions, especially in smaller towns and cities. In large well-known cities the two answers are typically the same (e.g., "San Francisco" and "San Francisco"). But in smaller cities the answers are different (e.g., "Paris, Texas" and "Paris"). Either way, the name of a U.S. city typically does not include the state it is in in most contexts. --B2C 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No, the proper name for the city is City of Springfield. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
City of Springfield is the official name of that city's government. It is not the name, much less the proper name, of the city itself. --B2C 20:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that the official name is not a proper name? And yes, it is THE name. It may not be the common name but that is a different question. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No. The official name of the city government is a proper name of the city government, but not a proper name of the city. The city (lower case) is not the government, and the government is not the city. However, we do use City (capitalized) to refer to the government of the city, and that's a proper name too. A proper name of the government, again. --B2C 20:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion of usage here. B2C appears to be using "the proper name" to mean "the correct name", whereas the original question was about "a proper name" in the grammatical sense (see Proper noun). "City of Springfield" is a proper name, as is "Springfield".
(Strictly a side issue, but the combination "Springfield, Illinois" is interesting. The comma suggests that it's a combination of two proper nouns. However, if you listen carefully to someone saying something like "No, not London, England, London, Ontario" the punctuation I've used is misleading: there's a pause/change of intonation between "London, England" and "London, Ontario" but not in either case between "London" and the next word. In practice, I think that combinations like "London England" are treated as something like a first name + a surname and hence as a proper name.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
"B2C appears to be using "the proper name" to mean "the correct name"". To the contrary, I'm using "proper name" in the grammatical sense. However, I'm distinguishing the proper name (in the grammatical sense) of the city (e.g., Springfield) from the proper name (in the grammatical sense) of the government of the city (e.g., City of Springfield). --B2C 21:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I’m just confused on why this conversation is happening here rather than on a grammar or ESL forum. It’s certainly not relevant to the OP’s question. —Frungi (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I responded to Vegas' assertion that the proper name of the city is City of Springfield. It wasn't a grammar issue. It partially explains why we title our articles Los Angeles rather than City of Los Angeles (the latter would be appropriate for a separate article which is exclusively about the government of the city - but we merge that topic into the article about the city). --B2C 21:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify the original question. When proper nouns occur within an article title, should it be punctuated as if it were in prose? For instance, an article about the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area: Rochester, New York metropolitan area vs Rochester, New York, metropolitan area (comma after “New York”). —Frungi (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The answer is surely "Yes": the article title should be styled the same way as it would be in text. "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area" means "the metropolitan area of Rochester in New York". "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" means "Rochester in the metropolitan area of New York". Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless more than one Rochester has a metropolitan area notable enough to have an article in WP, it's unnecessary disambiguation to include the state in the title; for best conformance with WP:CRITERIA in that case, the title should be Rochester metropolitan area.

If disambiguation is necessary, as is apparently the case here, I suggest parentheses: Rochester metropolitan area (New York) and Rochester metropolitan area (Minnesota). But I also think a strong argument could be made per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS for no dab page, and to use Rochester metropolitan area for the one in New York, and Rochester metropolitan area (Minnesota). --B2C 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just use the common natural form as Peter said: "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area", like in a sentence in a book. Dicklyon (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I like Rochester metropolitan area (New York)... or the more descriptive Greater Rochester (New York). Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any precedence or reason to use "common natural sentence form" in article titles. --B2C 00:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The question is whether given that a state is appearing as the second word of the article title to specify which state the city is in there should be a comma after the state. This is a question that apparently arises a lot. See here. Whether a completely different style of title should be chosen, and whether or not we think it's necessary or helpful to include the state name in the first place, are questions about the "comma convention" at WP:USPLACE that we can address on that page, if we want. (Some of the participants in this discussion are noisily opposed to the USPLACE "comma convention" and are trying to make this discussion about that, which it isn't.) The answer to this first question has to be yes, there needs to be a comma. PowersT said it best himself here in a discussion about the Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area: "The state name is delimited by commas because it is an interruption to the regular flow of the phrase. Much like one would say "the British style of government" or "New York state of mind", we have a noun phrase ("micropolitan area") being modified by a location ("Vidalia") to form a descriptive phrase ("Vidalia micropolitan area"). It's an area named for or identified by the community "Vidalia". The state name, here, is used as it is in running prose: "The man said he was from the Tupelo, Mississippi, area." One would not say "... from the Tupelo, Mississippi area", because one is not talking of a "Mississippi area". Likewise, we are not speaking of a "Georgia micropolitan area"; we're talking of a micropolitan area named for "Vidalia, Georgia". Thus, the commas are necessary, just as they would be in running prose."
The Rochester example is bad because "new york metropolitan area" has two meanings. But if we change the example to "rochester minnesota metropolitan area," there should be a comma both before and after minnesota because we are saying "the metropolitan area of rochester, minnesota" not "the minnesota metropolitan area of rochester" (because the state is being used to disambiguate the city).AgnosticAphid talk 02:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
So how do we differentiate between the metro area of a city and a designated statistical collection area, that is named after a city in the area? Is the former Rochester, Minnesota, metropolitan area and the latter Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area? Both can exist and the boundaries may not be the same. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The presence or absence of a comma goes nowhere near making such a distinction. But before we make any distinction between those two in article titles, I think we need to do so in our metropolitan area article; by my read of that, a metro area is a designated statistical collection area. —Frungi (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the distinction Vegaswikian is trying to make. Can someone clarify? Powers T 14:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure myself, but perhaps he is asking this: assume Rochester NY is actually some sort of small area or neighborhood in the New York (city) metropolitan area (what omitting the comma incorrectly suggests). How would we title its article? Presumably not "Rochester, NY metropolitan area"? AgnosticAphid talk 16:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for some background and clarification... Rochester, New York is city in western New York State. The title of our article on that city is in line with WP:USPLACE. But that article and title is not what is being asked about here. Rochester is also the anchor for a "Metropolitan Statistical Area" (MSA) designated by the US Census... this MSA includes the city itself, and several surrounding counties. If I understand the issue correctly, what is being asked about is the title our article on this particular MSA.

The answer will depend on several questions not yet asked. First... what is the official name of this MSA? Is this official name also the COMMONNAME, or not? If not, what is the COMMONNAME for the MSA? Second... if we use either the official name or the COMMONNAME, is there a need for disambiguation? Third... does WP:USPLACE apply to MSA articles? I am not sure that it does... An MSA is not really a place... its an artificial conglomeration of multiple places - joined together for the sake of statistical analysis. All of these questions will affect the title. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

These are all interesting questions that are not particularly relevant to the question initially asked. What would an article about the overall metropolitan area, not necessarily the official statistical area, be called? What about another article that is titled in a similar fashion, like maybe if there was an article about malls in the area that for some reason we decided to title "Rochester New York malls" (rather than the more typical "malls in rochester, new york" which avoids this issue)? "Rochester New York Rochester, New York metropolitan area is just an example about a particularly terrible consequence of what happens if we omit the second comma from such names. That's why I said above that "rochester minnesota metropolitan area" was a more prototypical example. AgnosticAphid talk 17:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
census.gov always styles it as "Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area", but not many other reliable sources follow them in that. We decided some time ago that these areas should be more about the metropolitan area (lowercase), as opposed to the formal census designations, which their old titles don't quite follow anyway. The Rochester one is yet to be fully fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well... here is another preliminary question... does Rochester really have a "metropolitan area" (lower case)? I've been there... nice city, but it isn't all that that big. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Books suggest that it has. Not always the same counties as the MSA includes. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to fix the Rochester one, not realizing that there had been a recent losing RM there (opposed by the idiotic theory of Apteva—explained here—and the "proper name" theory, neither of which would have help up in wider discussion). So, there's a bunch of work to do. Dicklyon (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Some entries in Category:Neighborhoods in New York might be helpful.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, it might be helpful to note WP:COMMA:

In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element (except at the end of a sentence). Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year (except at the end of a sentence). In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetic.

Incorrect: On November 24, 1971 Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

Correct:   On November 24, 1971, Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon, and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

—sroc 💬 02:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I'd hoped we had a rule that codified that standard English practice. The problem is that I cannot seem to convince people that this rule applies equally to article titles. Powers T 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I though it was pretty well agreed that article titles should be noun phrases (see WP:NOUN). How does the question of using non-grammatical constructs even come up? Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think it is more a question of whether to use a noun (a formal name), or a noun phrase (a description). The advice so far seems to favor using the latter... in which case, we have to ask which noun phrase do we want to use... one that requires lots of commas to work grammatically, or one that does not. I would opt for one that does not need lots of commas. Alternatively, we could use a title that is combination of both a name and a description... What about: "Rochester, New York (metropolitan area)"? Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, is it really better to avoid using a comma by using two parentheses instead? The other problem with that name is that it suggests that the "metropolitan area" part of the name is an optional clarifying addition when I don't think anyone would refer to the metropolitan area as just "Rochester, New York." AgnosticAphid talk 18:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not Rochester (New York metropolitan area) and Rochester (Minnesota metropolitan area)? bd2412 T 21:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Those are lame. Why use an awkward and unusual parenthetical style when a natural noun phrase will do the job? Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Which natural noun phrase are you referring to? Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Rochester, New York, metropolitan area. Like in books: [6], [7], [8], [9]. – Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification... Here is my concern: the phrase "New York metropolitan area" is most commonly used to refer to New York City and its suburbs. Yes, I know that, grammatically, having a comma before and after "New York" makes an important difference, but that difference is subtle and not everyone will catch the subtlety... we want to avoid even potential confusion. That's why I think using parenthesis helps... Rochester, New York (metropolitan area) has no potential for confusion. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Using English punctuation for what is means is as clear as we can get, I think. Making up new constructs because some people may not see commas seems like an odd stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Rochester metropolitan area (New York); Rochester metropolitan area (Minnesota). This is consistent with parenthetical disambiguation across Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The answer to the question is Yes; in this case at least, the article title should follow standard grammatical rules and insert the second comma: Rochester, New York, metropolitan area. The same change should be made for all other similarly named articles such as Portland, Maine metropolitan area --> Portland, Maine, metropolitan area. I used to think this didn't matter - in casual usage people often leave out the second comma even though it is grammatically required - but I changed my mind after a prolonged discussion with another user about Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area. That user took the absence of a comma literally, and insisted that the title refers to some (previously unknown) entity called the Ohio Metropolitan Area - and that the article so titled refers to the Columbus portion of the Ohio Metropolitan Area. This is so dead wrong - yet so logically defensible if you take the punctuation literally - that I feel we must follow the parenthetical-commas rule here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a presumption that there is an agreed–upon standard that completely specifies the use of "city, state" in every possible construction of English. Yet in this discussion no one has provided such a standard. The original request to move cited the Connecticut community college website http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm, item 4 which gives two exceptions to the rule (i.e., where the extra comma should not be used), both involving constructions of the form modifier noun where modifier is of the form city, state. These exceptions are a closer fit to the article name Rochester, New York metropolitan area than the example given in MOS:COMMA. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Guides do vary, but there is mostly agreement on this. See [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
And yet all of those sources (save one) sidestep the most controversial applications of this "standard" grammatical rule:
  • "city, state" as subject: Pocatello, Idaho, is one of the friendliest cities around. (Why am I pausing immediately after the subject of the sentence?)
  • "city, state" as object: I enjoyed Tuscaloosa, Alabama, immensely. (Why am I pausing between the verb and adverb when I don't intend any emphasis?)
  • "city, state" as modifier: Las Cruces, New Mexico, housing is in short supply. (This last case is dealt with explicitly only in [16] which wants us to believe that the comma doesn't represent a pause. Also, how seriously should I consider something published by "Scarecrow Press"?) -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
A comma does not represent a pause. It often coincides with one in spoken English, but that is not what the mark means. If you look up comma abuse or comma overuse, I believe you’ll find many sources that support this—inexperienced writers often erroneously insert a comma where they would pause when speaking aloud. —Frungi (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I’ll just point out that in both of those exceptions, the comma was replaced with a different punctuation mark. That is not the case for the titles in question. —Frungi (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
While I disagree with the characterization that a possessive apostrophe or a hyphen "replaces" a comma, I do admit that they chose ambiguous examples. I could just as easily attribute the comma-free construction to its form (viz., modifier noun) as I could to the existence of other punctuation that separates the placename-used-as-modifier from the rest of the sentence. Why can't anyone offer up more than one rulebook (published by the authoritative "Scarecrow Press") that explains that a comma should always follow the state even when that additional comma looks like an awkward pause, or, at a minimum shows the rule applied where it isn't obvious that it should be applied (see above)? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I did use the wrong word there. Rather, it seems to me that the apostrophe and the hyphen overrode the second comma. If you read about those exceptions, you’ll see that your ascribed reason is wrong. But regardless of the reason, the fact remains that both exceptions have a different punctuation mark where the comma would have been. —Frungi (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the exceptions DanielPenfield references refer specifically to "possessives" (which by definition use an apostrophe) and "compounds" (which by definition use a hyphen if not combined into a single word). Neither of those cases applies here. Powers T 17:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

But again, we're getting sidetracked. I didn't mean to introduce the ambiguity of the New York phrase into the discussion. Portland, Maine would be just as fine an example. It seems obvious to me that it should be Portland, Maine, metropolitan area, and that the omission of the comma (in Apteva's case, with the explicit purpose of interpreting the title as "the Maine metropolitan area surrounding Portland") is both confusing and non-grammatical. Is this the general consensus here? Powers T 17:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

With the notable exception of Apteva, yes, it seems so to me. —Frungi (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. While there are some guides that say that second comma is becoming optional, interpretations like Apteva's only serve to show why that's a bad idea when writing for a general audience who might get confused by the lack of helpful grammatical signal. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. I would say there is consensus. New York is a special case, because of the potential for confusion between city and state (a confusion that might require making a "New York exception" to the consensus). Things are much easier with non-New York metro areas. OK, there are other potential titles we could use (Greater Portland, Maine... Metropolitan Area of Portland, Maine.... Portland, Maine (Metropolitan area) all come to mind) but I would agree that these other options are not as natural as Portland, Maine, metropolitan area. And assuming that we are going to use that natural title, I would agree that there is consensus that it should include the second comma. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It seemed that we had pretty good agreement here about sensible comma usage; and someone even added a bit to the MOS, with only Apteva objecting, as far as I can see, to indicate that a comma used after a state as in the this discussion. Yet we still have RMs about this issue being confused by Apteva and his theory, but by another guy who thinks a "metropolitan area" is a proper name, and by a non-admin closer who can't see past the distractors. Am I missing something, or is this messed up? Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the broad question posed here of whether article titles should follow grammatical rules, my answer is generally yes, but it depends on the rule. I would say that not all the guidelines for sentences and prose are suitable to titles, and vice versa. Titles serve a different purpose than sentences in the body and have their own special considerations, which in part is why we have separate guidelines just for them.
For instance, in the case of the two-comma form under consideration (both here and in the current RfC on the subject), the feeling – shared both by those who do and do not favor it – seems to be that it produces a form that's "awkward" or "clunky"; that being the case, one has to weigh the benefit of applying a grammatical rule against the cost of altering stable article titles to make them awkward and clunky. Such decisions are probably best made through discussion. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
if there's a concern with the grammatically correct construction being awkward, surely we should recast the title in a different grammatically correct way rather than make up our own grammatically incorrect title. That just makes wikipedia look unprofessional. I can't envision a situation where the latter option would be preferable. We shouldn't retain incorrect titles just because moving lots of articles is a pain. AgnosticAphid talk 15:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The one-comma construction isn't our own "made up" form; as several RfC commentators have noted, it's a form used in a range of reliable sources. As for discussing ways to recast the title to avoid such constructions altogether, that's fine; however, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there's actually a problem with the current very stable titles (beyond grammatical pedantry), even that may be unnecessary. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe that's a clear overstatement. The only "reliable source" I saw that omitted the comma (rather than suggesting recasting instead of using two commas – which clearly indicates a preference for two commas over one comma – or ambiguously saying that the single comma is increasingly accepted, without actually using it) was the US census bureau. I don't think that the census bureau necessarily made the grammatically incorrect choice on purpose. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I really don't think there's "a range of reliable sources" that use this grammatically incorrect construction. AgnosticAphid talk 23:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The census bureau usage is only with the two-letter postal abbreviations, not state names. A few guides (e.g. this one) have a special rule for that case, saying the comma is not needed (compared to with the state, where it is needed). So the census bureau usage is consistent with such guides, not an exception. In WP, since we don't use postal codes in titles (except in those titles that haven't been fixed to be consistent with guidelines yet), that case is not relevant. Look to the Bureau of Labor Statistics [17] for how the census areas are applied; they use state names spelled out and the second comma. I think H is correct that the single comma is "a form used in a range of reliable sources", but so is the two commas, and I don't see how he thinks that determines why WP should deviate from its usual style of using grammatical best practice. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment... if conflict over the rules of Grammar are making it hard to reach a consensus over two potential titles... try thinking of alternative titles that don't involve the Grammar rule in question. A third option might gain consensus. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: new ONLYTOPIC concept/section

My attempt to clarify the definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to apply in the obvious/trivial case of a term with only one use on WP is not gaining WP:LOCALCONSENSUS support at WT:D, primarily because the concept is considered to be out of scope for disambiguation, which by definition deals with the context of terms having more than one use.

So what about adding a parallel definition to WP:AT called ONLYTOPIC defined as follows?

Only topic

If a topic is the only topic with an article on Wikipedia to which a given term refers, then that topic is the Only topic for that term.

Every term which has an Only topic should be the title of, or a redirect to, the article about that Only topic.
For example, New York City has many terms that redirect to it. The topic of that article is either the Only Topic or the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for each of those terms, including: New York, New York, City of New York, NYC, etc.

The value of having this is so that we can easily reference the concept in contexts such as, "if the topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:ONLYTOPIC for the term, then...".

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? --B2C 23:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Edited to fix errors based on assuming every redirect is an Only Topic --B2C 17:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • WP:CREEP. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    WP:JUSTAPOLICY. TheFreeloader (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this seems like a natural extention of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I might even go so far as to say that any reasonable interpretation of that guideline would already include everything in this proposed policy. As such I don't see why this would be appropriate to introduce here. The proper place for this, if it is needed, would in my opinion be over at WP:D.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I agree. But like I said, I can't seem to develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS there for that. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#What_is_the_primary_topic_for_.22Oprah_Winfrey.22.3F. Thanks! --B2C 03:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - completely pointless, and the example given " Thus, the Only topic for NYC is the topic of the article at New York City. " isn't even correct; see NYC (Taiwan) and NYC (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Good point, In ictu oculi. I've fixed it. It was silly of me to assume that New York city is the Only Topic for every redirect to New York City. For some, like for NYC, it is the primary topic.

      But New York City is either the Only Topic or the Primary Topic for every term that redirects to New York City. Wouldn't it be convenient (less cumbersome) to say that New York City is the Primary Topic for every term that redirects to New York City? But we can't say that unless we clearly define WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to apply when a topic is the Only Topic. --B2C 17:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Since the discussion on this topic at WT:D appears to have ended, I’ll respond here: Your wording doesn’t quite make sense to me, but conceptually, I don’t see the necessity. Has it ever been controversial that the “only topic” of a phrase should be the primary topic? Do we have DAB pages with only one working link? —Frungi (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Frungi, yes it has been controversial. This was explained and specific examples were given in the opening post of the WT:D section. Please read it. Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#What_is_the_primary_topic_for_.22Oprah_Winfrey.22.3F. Please continue the discussion about that there. It is not closed. --B2C 17:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Are you sure? The most recent post in that section appears to be from three days ago, and the following section on the same subject was closed by an admin. Incidentally, the summer camp joke in your last post in that section sums up my feelings on the necessity of this clarification. —Frungi (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:Creep. No apparent need for more rules, and this reads as legalese without substance. Serves to increase the jargon load of policy, making the project more difficult for the unencultured to join. If you can't explain something simply, it doesn't belong in policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This looks like another attempt to algorithmatise the determination of article titles—which might be acceptable if the algorithms could (1) entrench real consensus, 2) be evidence-based, and (3) be sensitive to the myriad of relevant real-world variables. But they fail on all three criteria.

    Please note these foundational statements of policy, at WP:TITLE:

    "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains."

    In that last sentence: "editors choose" ... "based on the considerations that this page explains". But the "editors choose" principle appears to be subverted—here just as persistently as at WP:DAB. That is the home of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT), a hard form of which one editor now seeks to entrench as policy.

    A suggested addition to TITLE is: "If a topic is the only topic with an article on Wikipedia to which a given term refers, then that topic is the Only topic for that term. Every term which has an Only topic should be the title of, or a redirect to, the article about that Only topic."

    Nowhere else in TITLE is the so-called primary topic given such status. Here are TITLE's two treatments of primary topic:

  1. "Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." (PT is not presented as something that "should" be followed; it remains external to policy, as a mere guideline—one that is nearly always misread and misapplied, I argue. But B2C's addition elevates a version of PT to a non-discretionary "should".)
  2. "As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia: / If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies. / If the topic is not primary, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated. (This "Only topic" proposal overrides the tentativeness of "as a general rule"; and it converts "can be its title without modification" to "should be its title without modification". What, I ask, is wrong with rational, overt, consensual, and responsive to the real world—as opposed to surrendering to algorule?)

    Tony (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose As per Tony: undesirable attempt to bypass the need for editors to make consensus decisions. Also unnecessary instruction creep. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I totally trust B2C; I trust him to always be looking for ways to advance the agenda detailed on his user page, as he has been doing for over 7 years here. That's why I reverted when he tried to add this to a policy page. I trust him to argue in RMs that every tidbit he has managed to sneak into a policy page trumps every guideline and every other editor's opinion about any particular question on which reasonable people have different opinions. Stomping out the influence of editor opinions is not an agenda that I agree with. So no; this one small creepy step is a step in the wrong direction. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is pure utter instruction creep, and should not be allowed per WP:BURO. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose someone will use this to point to article "XYZ (abc)" being the ONLYTOPIC even though "XYZ" is a synonym for "MNOP". Or where "XYZ (def)" is the obvious primary topic, but is only covered as a section of "MNOP" but we have a minor topic "XYZ (abc)" which has an article, and usurp them. The NYC example just proves this, since someone would move "NYC (Taiwan)" atop "NYC" to be the only topic (were just Taiwan and New York City the two articles that existed) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Parenthesis in title

Is there a rule that a parenthetical description can be used in titles only for the purpose of disambiguation? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule on this one way or the other ... But I have to ask... Can you give us an example of a situation where you might want to add such parenthetical description? I would think adding parentheticals would result in a title that was not really recognizable, natural, or concise. Surely there would be a better title option that did not include the parenthetical. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response. Yes, there's a sticky little problem that's come up. I'm preparing a post about it at the relevant project, and when I do, I'll leave a link here. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is outlined at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Naming gens articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I've seen song names with a parenthetical part. Can't think of one right now. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction and It's Only Rock 'n Roll (But I Like It) are a couple of examples. Matt Deres (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Those aren't parenthetical descriptions though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe parentheses should only appear in titles of articles about titled works, when those works include parentheses: "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)". If the topic doesn't include parentheses, Wikipedia titles should only include them for disambiguation (WP:PRECISION). If the title-without-the-parenthetical isn't good enough to be the article title, a better title-without-parenthetical should be identified. The naming conventions don't explicitly forbid it, but they are contra-indicated (implicitly opted against) by the recognizability, naturalness, precision, and conciseness guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And how does this address the issues raised at the link above in naming gens articles? It might be better to post specifics there. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I give up, how? Since this is a response to your top-level question here, I didn't realize I was committing to a response there (there being linked in your third-level reply) in an area with which I am not familiar. But feel free to adapt specifics from that response to the other discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Another use I've seen for parens is to give unique titles to various articles that would otherwise have the same title. For example, we have Past tense, which describes the grammatical term, a DA page Past tense (disambiguation), and linked from there, several articles describing different creative works that are all called "Past tense". Since titles of creative works are not subject to copyright, there is no reason that several different works can't have the same title. Jeh (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't give articles unique titles to protect copyright. We give articles unique titles to enable them to exist at all in the wiki system. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand that. Indeed, "to protect copyright" would be a pointless goal, because titles of creative works are not subject to copyright in the first place! I was simply pointing out that that (no copyrights on titles) is what allows multiple creative works to have the same title. And thereby require some sort of unique-ifying annotation in the titles of WP articles about them. Jeh (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Erm… I believe the practice you describe, Jeh, is called “disambiguation”. “To give unique titles to various articles that would otherwise have the same title” is pretty much the definition. —Frungi (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I know that. I was just giving an example reason for the need. We are in what a friend of mine calls "violent agreement". :) Jeh (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh. I was confused because you said “another use” when Cynwolfe’s question asked about uses other than disambiguation. —Frungi (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said at the related discussion at MOSDAB, unless they're part of the name of the work, parentheticals are only used to distinguish from other articles of the same title. They shouldn't be used if the base name is available, which appears to be the case here. This is the point of WP:PRECISION. As JHJ says, if the base name is not usable for some reason, then a better title without the artificial parenthetical construction should be used instead.--Cúchullain t/c 13:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So what would be a better way to title the articles in question? Again, the issues are outlined at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Naming gens articles, where for nearly a week I've been unable to attract suggestions. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
i wouldn't worry about it in cases where there arent other articles of the same title, and just make it clear in the article itself. however, If the titles really aren't clear enough from the base name I'd suggest something longer that doesn't use parentheticals, like Gens Alfrania. --Cúchullain t/c 22:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Repost from January

Mike Reid (American football) — should it have that name or a more specific name? I mean, he seems to be as known for his singing and songwriting, if not moreso. Should the article name give weight to both, or more to the singer-songwriter part?

I asked this question before, and someone suggested the talk page. However, the talk page hasn't been touched since 2008, so I'm asking here to get more traffic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In the Mike Reid dab, there are two other American football players, Michael Reid (linebacker) and Mike Reid (safety), though the latter is a red link. So Mike Reid (American football) doesn't fully disambiguate, unless he is the clear primary topic among football players. Defensive lineman is a common disambiguator, e.g., Mike Martin (defensive lineman). Though his 2× Pro Bowl selection may be sufficient to support him as PT in football. A quick glance at his bio shows that his football and music careers both were in their prime for about 3 – 5 years, so perhaps picking a primary career isn't that easy. But the article puts {{Infobox NFL player}} at the top rather than {{Infobox musical artist}}, implying that football was the primary career. I don't know if there is any precedent for double-career disambiguation, but I wouldn't object to Mike Reid (defensive lineman and musician). Perhaps he should have a customized infobox which combines the elements of {{Infobox NFL player}} and {{Infobox musical artist}}. You can draw more traffic to the talk page by starting a {{subst:Move}} discussion there. Just use a question mark for the proposed new title if you want the discussion to be more open-ended and want to use the discussion to decide which title is best. Lots of editors watch the discussions at WP:RM. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CT vs. Usage in Reliable Sources... who wins?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)

There's no reason not to go with MOS:CT on composition titles, which tend to be wildly inconsistent in sources anyway; this particular one doesn't even have any coverage in English-language sources (how can you imagine "sources" will "win" when there aren't any?). On the other one, MOS:CAPS and sources are not in conflict; it will stay at lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the first one, sources supporting the proposed title are listed in the proposal. --B2C 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If there are no English language sources, why should an English language style be enforced?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this dated before or after the last RM warning to B2C at Talk:Nguyen for WP:Canvassing at WT:AT? Either way B2C needs to think very carefully about where and how he/she notifies of RMs not going the way B2C wants. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest a proviso?

COMMONNAME should specify directly that it only applies in cases where a subject actually has a common name, i.e., the subject is likely to be well-known to the typical Wikipedia reader. At Talk:Emperor Jimmu#Requested move someone cited COMMONNAME because of the approximately 5 books that have been written in English on the subject over the last century, 3 use one spelling and 2 use the other. (Obviously these numbers are "estimates".) This is obviously an abuse of the guideline, but I've noticed it in other places too. I suggest we add something like: This guideline is usually applied only to subjects that have a commonly recognizable name, while niche subjects generally adhere to other guidelines first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes... COMMONNAME is not a simple matter of counting us sources and going with the majority... the majority has to be considered significant (if that word has been removed from the policy, we should add it back... it was important). In a case like the one Hijiri talks about there really isn't a COMMONNAME. We would have to look to other provisions to determine which title is best. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed while trying to find a good place to insert my proposed addition that the guideline already says we often use accurate titles over common ones, and that is why Japan MOS says the current title of the case I am referring to is wrong. But of course we can't specifically mention MOSJ here, so is "other provisions" good enough? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with accuracy is this: when sources disagree over a name, how do we determine which name actually is accurate? The answer is that we can't. Is "William Jefferson Clinton" more accurate than "Bill Clinton"?... no. Both names are equally "accurate". However, "Bill Clinton" is significantly more common, so we use that. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually talking about my example and not Clinton (I agree with you that both are equally accurate). "Jimmu", though, misrepresents Japanese orthography, which in my view should definitely take precedence over a very slight majority usage in old sources, which have likely only been read by people who are already familiar with both forms anyway. We should specify that COMMONNAME does not apply to niche topics that by definition do not have a common name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the word significant is still there somewhere, but I wonder if the wording can be made clearer and more consistent. At the moment we have the following in different places:
  • 'Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"'.
  • 'Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. '
  • 'When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus . . .'
Even where the word significant is used, I am not sure it would always be interpreted as covering the general case raised, where there really is no common name in English. For instance, 80 out of 100 occurrences could be considered "a significant majority" but, in my opinion, 4 out of 5 should probably not be. 80% might be a interpreted as a significant majority but a total of 4 occurrences is not sufficient to establish an English name at all, let alone a common one. This is probably mainly an issue with foreign cultural terms (names of institutions etc.). --Boson (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Also remember that the common name isn't the be all and end all of article naming, even for articles that do have an easily discernable common name. Other issues come into play including ambiguity, inaccuracy, non-neutrality, vulgarity or pedantry. Please make sure that any new wording doesnt imply any superiority of common name over other concerns. -- Nbound (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
For some reason, editors repeatedly prioritize "common name"/"recognizability" over the other four criteria explained at WP:AT. What we need is wording that stresses that "common name" does not have any special priority; it's one important criterion to be weighed up with the others. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course common name has priority over consistency. As an example see Category:Military by country. Originally all the articles on Wikiepdia were named "Military of ..." this was changed to using common name where that could be ascertained. The major problem with consistency is that it can be used to reinforce mistakes. Consistency should only be applied as a secondary consideration. To expand on that. Take the name of European monarchs. It makes sense to have a consistent format for monarchs as specified in WP:NCROY (unless there is a good reason not to eg common usage for names like "Peter the Great"), but to use consistency with other articles, to argue that a name should or should not be Anglicised against common usage in reliable secondary sources, is I think less than helpful. This really comes down to the issue of "Recognizability" (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize). -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS, you're missing the point. Everyone "familiar with" the subject of the ancient Japanese emperors that brought me here is as likely to know one spelling as the other, and hardly anyone fits that category anyway. It seems the only rational arguments that can be given in favour of COMMONNAME always taking priority make exclusive use of examples other than ancient Japanese monarchs whom hardly any English speak has heard of. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I would personally say that precision has priority over the other four criteria: an article title needs to precisely identify the topic of the article; a name which is highly ambiguous is useless as the title of an encyclopaedia article, however common it is. But priority is not a concept that should be invoked as a general rule. Editors need to balance all the five criteria by consensus in specific cases.
Recognizability is often misused. A name like "football" or "robin" is highly recognizable, but means quite different things to people in different countries. Some editors almost seem to argue that whatever the majority of non-experts call something must be the right title for an article, regardless of any other consideration. WP:AT taken as a whole and used via consensus is an excellent guide. One bit of it in isolation is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusion over "proper names"

I've realised this is more to do with MOSCAPS than WP:TITLE (style is not, strictly speaking, within the purview of TITLE). I've transferred the post there, and have taken the liberty of duplicating Peter coxhead's comment, too. Sorry for the fuddle.

MOSCAPS

Tony (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A particular problem is the instruction: "Use lowercase, except for proper names".
The real situation is explained quite well at Proper noun, but sadly this article appears to fall into the "too long; didn't read" (tldr) category for many of those participating in discussions on capitalization.
The relevant summary is: There isn't a 1:1 relationship between proper nouns/noun phrases (proper names) and capitalization. As Tony says, the AT page is quite wrong in this respect.
Examples: "He drove a Chevrolet", "She is a Londoner" – neither "Chevrolet" nor "Londoner" are proper names but they are capitalized. "It's on page 5", "See chapter 4" – "page 5" and "chapter 4" are grammatically proper names but they are not capitalized in modern punctuation (although they used to be and I wish they still were). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Both Chevrolet and Londoner are indeed proper nouns and therefore are properly written, typed, or printed with uppercase initial letters.
Chevrolet is the trade name (a proper noun) of a line of motor vehicles, and Londoner is a name (a proper noun) for a native or resident of London.
What respectable, authoritative, reliable source has suggested otherwise?
DocRushing (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Proper noun. Tony (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

UE question

Is there a guideline that covers the apparent exception under WP:UE for Category:Çankırı? I'm somewhat confused by transliteration policy/practice, and this is not a language/alphabet in which I'm literate. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-latin scripts get transliterated. Latin scripts like Turkish and even English have a varying degree of diagritics which tend to be retained. UE will come into play when the place has an established English exonym like Munich für München or Istanbul for İstanbul. Agathoclea (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean the Ç, which seems to be covered by the need for diacritics. I mean the ırı. How does that come into play? I'm just asking for purposes of self-education. There's no ongoing debate or anything. I'm just confused. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The dotless I is also a diacritic, just this time something is taken away. Agathoclea (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear explanation. I didn't know it could be thought of that way in transliterations. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Cynwolfe WP:UE is confusing (though WP:UE is not actually in WP:POINTY full blown conflict with the encyclopedia's article corpus as WP:EN is). But don't worry en.wp editors use full Turkish for every geo and bio on en.wp - Çankırı is consistent with other Turkey articles following the WP:AT as per a "Turkish for Turkish towns" guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

CONCISE shortcut

Recently, the redirect, WP:CONCISE, was discussed at Rfd. The decision was to retarget it to Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision as a policy shortcut. Part of the reason was the reference in that section to conciseness:

  • Energy is not precise enough to indicate unambiguously the physical quantity (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the conciseness and recognizability criteria).

So please use WP:CONCISE as a policy shortcut to the section about precision. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to see all the five criteria explained a bit more in their own sections, and then each linked, rather than see two linked to the same section. This is not to say that the five are equally important, but to stress that each should be considered. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see some examples of possible article titles that would be equally correct to use under the other criteria, but for which conciseness would require using the more compact or less wordy one over the other. bd2412 T 22:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This all makes sense, and I'm sorry the addition of the shortcut to the section about precision was premature. The shortcut is there (along with another if you want it: WP:Concise). Both can easily be retargeted to the section title of your choice when it has been created. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that as five criteria need to be considered together, individual shortcuts are counterproductive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Even though they need to be considered together, it would be nice to have a distinct explanation of what each one means. bd2412 T 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's lame; why didn't you just delete it? None of the uses of that redirect are for precision; nor for conciseness. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lame? Not actually. The reasons for deletion and non-deletion of redirects found at WP:DP & WP:RFD are clear. Best to you! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see changing a redirect to redirect to an irrelevant place as a recommended way to avoid deleting a useless obsolete redirect. Just because they don't list useless and obsolete as a reason to delete doesn't mean one can't delete for that reason; the list specifically says it is not limiting. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I changed it to point to the section where conciseness in mentioned: Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this is the best solution. bd2412 T 15:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_42&oldid=1144427770"