Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Local vs. international conventions
I've seen arguments that e.g. Ganges should be moved to Ganga because the latter in the form in Indian English. (Also that there are more Indian English speakers than US or UK speakers, so Indian English usage should take precedence per WP:COMMONNAME.) This page does not, so far as I can see, discuss whether local or international English should prevail. I've asked for clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Using_local_terms_for_local_phenomena; please join the discussion there. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking the standard would be the majority of published scholarly works in English, except where there is substantial common usage, such as with the Ganges. Local usage does not prevail, common usage does. --Bejnar (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion to move Senkaku Islands to Pinnacle Islands. An interesting interpretation of Naming conventions is discussed there. Please participate in the discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Should not necessarily
I think this edit, which says that we "should not necessarily" follow the local variety of English under certain circumstances is unwise.
Should not necessarily is not grammatical. It does not mean "should not"; it doesn't mean anything.
And we don't mean "should not": the use of should in policies is generally a shorthand; policy pages aren't prescriptive, they are descriptions of what the wider consensus (which is policy) actually does. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. (There is - or ought to be - consensus that NPOV or NOR is an ethical requirement, but article titles are a matter of convenience.)
In this case, "should not" is an inaccurate description; we title the page on the river Ganges, because the consensus of the rest of English is strong, and Indian English is divided; but we title the Indian city Mumbai, because Indian English has a strong consensus, and the rest of English has joined it. What we do in intermediate cases (which "should not" would declare) is undecided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the grammatical part. Since a 'necessarily' qualifier is present, the 'should not' is superfluous and adds an unnecessary, and possibly inaccurate, hint of normativeness to the phrase. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- What arrant nonsense. Should not necessarily makes perfect sense and is completely gramatically correct. If you don't understand what it means, then the problem is yours, I have no intention of explaining it to you.
- Nick Thorne talk 15:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- If we don't understand it, who else will? "Should not be necessarily" would be meaningful, but contorted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Should is a fairly strong normative word that implies almost always (the 'almost' indicates 'not necessarily') and that exceptions should be few and far between. Do is descriptive and is, consequently, a less onerous restriction. I'm not sure what the intent of the policy is, but, if pmanderson is correct that policies should document practices, then the descriptive do is better than the prescriptive should. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I'd agree with that, even though there is a certain prescriptive intent behind policies. ("Should not necessarily" is grammatically correct, but that's about all that can be said for it. Perhaps it means "should not automatically", but no guideline should be expected to apply automatically, so that's a needless caution.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Should is a fairly strong normative word that implies almost always (the 'almost' indicates 'not necessarily') and that exceptions should be few and far between. Do is descriptive and is, consequently, a less onerous restriction. I'm not sure what the intent of the policy is, but, if pmanderson is correct that policies should document practices, then the descriptive do is better than the prescriptive should. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- If we don't understand it, who else will? "Should not be necessarily" would be meaningful, but contorted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- On the semantics of necessarily: why not keep it simple, just use must, should, may, should not, and must not? Is you are an advocate of it, how does one calibrate the differences among a should not, a should not necessarily, and a may? patsw (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Multiple levels of geographic disambiguation articles
Should there be multiple levels of geographic disambiguation? Let's use a hypothetical Someplace. which refers to a disambiguation page. Should there be a Someplace, United States dab page for places with that name in the United Sates, and/or Someplace, New York dab page for places with that name in New York.
This occurs in a practical sense when a village, town, township, city, county, etc. bear identical names, or where Someplace is qualified by a compass direction, preceding descriptor "New", "Old", "Central", "Port", etc. or a following term like "Beach", "Park", "Terrace", "Gardens", etc. patsw (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)