Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September

Bibliography and place-names

Recently some difficulty has come up regarding the use of place-names in bibliographical listings. At Translations of Through the Looking-Glass, some editors, citing the Naming Conventions on geographic names, have changed a bibliographic citation from [[Westport, County Mayo|Cathair na Mart]] to [[Westport, County Mayo]]. Now I agree with the usual MoS naming convention: articles and general citations about Westport should be listed under that name and not under Cathair na Mart. But in a bibliography, the correct thing to do is to give the publication place as it is given in the book itself. Why? Because that is how it will be catalogued by libraries, in particular OCLC, the Library of Congress, and the British Library. In those editions of Looking-Glass the name "Westport" doesn't even occur. The point of a bibliographical entry is to help a person identify and find a book, and to do so, the information as presented in the book should have priority over a secondary translation by a Wikipedia editor. I propose that the MoS adopt a rule that in bibliographies, the place-name be given as it appears in the book (subject to script transliteration) and that it be pipe-linked to the article whose name should be the common name in English. -- Evertype·✆ 11:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've written the text of this policy in the article. I hope the policy will be accepted, or modified with discussion and consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 12:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I was reverted, the phrase Wikipedia editor does not belong in there. It implies that translations by our editors are inferior to other forms of translation. Either we want to use translations in this case or we prefer not too. The source is not the issue and should not be raised. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. My view is that while translation is not really original research, in the context of changing the citation form that appears in a bibliography, it is bad practice to change Cathair na Mart to Westport in particular if the latter term does not appear in the book. Piping here is the appropriate place for the translation activity of an editor; but the editor should not be taking it upon himself or herself to essentially change the bibliographic information itself. -- Evertype·✆ 00:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Evertype has a WP:COI on this subject as his printing company use this style themselves. Oppose making exceptions to conform to outside manual of style. I have removed the BOLD entry, inserted in accordance with WP:BRD, removed inaccordance with this and to allow further discussion here. Murry1975 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD Discuss when reverted Micheal. To say there is no COI yet your example is conforming this MOS to the MOS used by your publishing company is a COI. Murry1975 (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Accusing me of having a conflict of interest does not mean I have one. This is about bibliographic accuracy, and is not limited to the 150 books I have published: it is relevant to books published by all publishers, worldwide. If a book is published in Denmark, the bibliography should state København as written on the book, and pipe to the article Copenhagen. There is nothing unusual or strange about this: In library bibliographies from the British Library to the Library of Congress, the place of publication is normally given as it is stated on the book. Wikipedia practice should reflect this good and accurate biblographic practice. And I don't know what you mean about "my printing company" (I do not own a printing company) "use this style". My books say Cathair na Mart because my address is in Irish. Books printed in Denmark say København because their addresses are in Danish. In either case, it is inappropriate for editors to alter the bibliographic information as stated on the book, just as it would be imappropriate for them to translate the book titles or other bibliographic information. The proper way to deal with this is to give the information about the publishing city as it is on the book, and if a link to an article about that city is relevant, it should be piped. This is a sensible and serious proposal, and it was made in June. There has been no opposition to it, apart from yours, and in fact your opposition does not address the points raised, about bibliographical accuracy, which is the reason for "making an exception". in this matter. I have restored the paragraph. (You have deleted it again, without warrant.) I welcome further discussion, but having that paragraph and its text available for scrutiny is more appropriate than deleting it. -- Evertype·✆ 13:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"To say there is no COI yet your example is conforming this MOS to the MOS used by your publishing company is a COI." This is nonsense. My company does not use a manual of style. My company has an address, which is in the Irish language, and so that address appears on my books. That is not an MOS. Books published in Denmark do not have a MOS either. They have addresses in the Danish language, and so that address appears on their books. This is not about me, and there is no COI. -- Evertype·✆ 13:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Exceptions in bibliographies While the use of English names should be followed in titles and articles, an exception should be made in bibliographical citations, because bibliographical references are typically given (and catalogued by libraries) using the name of publication as it appears on the book itself. Since the point of a bibliographical entry is to help a person identify and find a book, the information as presented in the book should have priority over what is essentially a secondary translation by an editor. For example, if a book published in Ireland states Cathair na Mart on its title and/or copyright page, this name should be retained, though piped to the article name, which should be in English, thus: [[Westport, County Mayo|Cathair na Mart]]. A bibliographical listing may be given in romanization ([[St. Petersburg|Leningrad]]) or as it appears in the book ([[St. Petersburg|Ленинград]]), depending on the style chosen in the article.

So that the text can be discussed, since Murry1975 has removed it (again, needlessly). -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Needlessly re-added :) by yourself with prior discussion as pper your bold edit. No it shouldnt be in non-English just because outside parties use that form. It should be in English, as this allows the reader, who in all likely hood, would not know the native name of a place. Wikipedia is about communicating to the ability of many levels of understanding and knowledge. It is one of the aims of Wikipedia, allowing all to garner information which they can understand.

It needs to be addressed but conform to the MOS we already have. Baile Áṫa Cliaṫ and Baile Átha Cliath are just Dublin, yet to a person reading the article they could read as two seperate places. As for Westport, not many Irish people know its Irish name, I honestly cant see an average reader gaining any information from reading Cathair na Mairt without having to follow the link, this is in itself unencyclopdic. Murry1975 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A bibliographical entry is a form of citation, and it is not appropriate to change the relevant data of a citation. I do not care whether Cathair na Mart or København is in the text in the MOS (evidently you are not continuing to accuse me of COI), but your saying "it should be in English" is simply re-stating your view, and is not addressing the issue. The issue is that good bibliographic practice worldwide lists the data of a book as it appears in the book. It is wonderful that Wikipedia can pipe to an article about the place; it is nevertheless inappropriate for the bibliographic data to be changed by an editor. The MOS is a guideline, and in general it is a good one. It should not be applied to bibliographical data. You say "It needs to be addressed". Yes, it does. I have addressed it. If we give the bibliographic data as it appears in the book, and pipe to the English-language name of the article about the place-name, we are "addressing" the issue. If we change the bibliographical data, we are engaging in paraphrasing, not in citation, and a bibliographical entry is a citation and should be treated as such. -- Evertype·✆ 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think that if we refer directly to a place name (or author, or publisher, etc.) that appears in a certain form in the work itself, we should reproduce that form on WP, a la MOS:QUOTE. However, 1) I don't think we need to add to the guidance here for this very specific issue - use MOS:QUOTE if it comes up again; and 2) I question the need for wikilinking to places of publication in the first place. See WP:OVERLINK. What value to the reader is served by linking to Paris in a list of Translations of Through the Looking Glass? I would de-link all of those. Dohn joe (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dohn joe, but MOS:QUOTE says it should be translated into English, which is my original point. Murry1975 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:CITEVAR — we should not change away from one citation style to another, unless we're harmonising multiple styles or restoring what's actually the original style. Some style guides have specific standards on this kind of thing: for example, MLA says to give just the town name, even when it's a rather obscure little place. Since I do my best to write in a {{reflist}}-friendly form of MLA, I omitted ", California" on Yankeetown Site and Hubele Mounds and Village Site when citing a book that was published in Walnut Creek; it's incorrect to change the bibliographic data to suit your preferences, and you're basically breaking the citation. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dohn Joe, The reason I have proposed text about the treatment of place-names in bibliographies is that it has come up before. It's an actual problem for which I have offered a solution. We do need guidance here so that on pages with bibliographies don't have to have the argument over and over again. Again, in a bibliography perhaps linking to Paris isn't necessary, though editors link to what they link to. But in writing København as it is on the book and piping to Copenhagen we accomplish two things: we cite the info from the book as it is in the book, and we assist a reader who does not know a particular wordform to find out what it is. The rule I have proposed is good for the encyclopaedia. I'm afraid Murry1975 is wikilawyering "oh, we must not write København because MOS:QUOTE says otherwise". This does not address the problem of bibliographical citation which is different. The text I have provided does address it, cleanly. -- Evertype·✆ 09:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME

On what grounds was my recent addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME undone? Too WP:BOLD? Chrisrus (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the undoing edit’s summary answers that. I tend to agree. —Frungi (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Was it not a constructive edit? What was wrong with it? Chrisrus (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn’t unconstructive, but it was asserting a source preference (maps) that may not have consensus. (I think that was the objectionable bit.) So, discuss that, and if no one objects, feel free to re-add it. —Frungi (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I object. Chrisrus has been obsessed with the naming of Tenedos for about a year now [1], and phrasing WP:MODERNPLACENAME this way favors his position. It's just a pretty transparent attempt at "laying the groundwork", so to speak, before making yet another move request, seeing how the last one failed. First he tries to unilaterally move the article anyway [2], now this. This smacks of desperation, and disruption as well. Athenean (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Surely an edit should be judged on it's merits alone in terms of page improvement and not on the motivations of the person making the edit. Please try to depersonalize this conversation and concentrate on the merits of this addition alone, without regard as to who is making it and why.

Now, please, why would that edit not constitute improvement to this page? Suppose there is a modern place name in dispute at a Wikipedia article. They will look to this guideline for help. We want this guideline to be as helpful as possible, and that is the purpose of this guideline, to help people in such a situation. So for the guideline to say, in encyclopedic terms, "Check the appropriate (explain what "appropriate" means) maps. If they agree, you have found your answer." That would be completely reasonable, help resolve disputes, simplify the process, and ensure that, when the name of a place changes we stay up with the latest, best maps? This is in line with the spirit and purpose of WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Please address these relevant points and talk about me only in appropriate venues for such discussions. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Very simple. Maps are but one of many types of sources. There is no reason why we should use them exclusively, at the expense of other types of sources. I also can't help but find it very strange that you unilaterally tried to move Tenedos, and then made that change to WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Let's not pretend shall we, we both know what's going on here. Athenean (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. If all the (appropriate) maps agree, it's not reasonable or realistic to worry that those other sources won't also be be changing in a timely manner. The thing is, it's just not reasonably necessary to keep looking for your car keys after you've found them, so to speak, to force the debate to try Google Book searches and such containing many less up-to-date references and swayed by the fact that, every time a place changes it's name from Xton to Yburg many references to it contain both terms for some time and you have to go wading through tons of other sources looking to see how which is used in a primary way and they start making tables and it turns into an unnecessary entmoot that drags on and on needlessly when it could all have been solved so simply by just checking the appropriate maps and trusting that they all can't be wrong at once. And if the maps don't all agree, they still are encouraged to go look at other sources, so you've mischaracterized the edit by saying that "exclusively". Please be reasonable; this is a perfectly reasonable addition to the guidelines. Chrisrus (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, reverts without reasonable explanation are inexcusable and should be reverted themselves. And, "I don't see consensus for this" is not a reasonable explanation. See WP:REVEXP.

Second, Chrisrus is totally correct that edits should be judged on their merits alone and not on the motivations of the person making them. In fact, who makes the edit should not be a consideration at all.

Now, the edit itself seems totally consistent with policy and widespread practice, and I see no substantive objection warranting its revert. Unless and until someone can express such objection, it should be restored. --B2C 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's why I think that it's at least debatable whether this is a reasonable addition to (clarification of?) the rules. Why should there be such a preference for maps? The way this rule is written, what happens in a situation where a bunch of english-language maps say one thing about the name of a place, but all the academic or popular literature (or whatever sources) says something else is the name? Why would the maps necessarily be the correct choice for determining the common name? If this is not expressing a map preference but instead just saying, "if all the maps say one thing and nothing else says anything else, then go with the maps," then surely it is so obvious as to not be a worthy addition to the guideline. AgnosticAphid talk 07:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To B2C:

1. I don't see that claim anywhere in that essay. Anyway, I gave that reason for reverting your revert because your revert claimed that there was consensus, and the fact that it was reverted in the first place, for one, kind of demonstrates that there wasn't.
2. I mostly agree. See WP:Assume good faith.
3. I disagree per Athenean. Why prefer the spellings used in maps? Why should maps be our standard as opposed to any other class of sources? But if others say that yes, we should prefer maps, I won't argue.

—Frungi (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about the other sources using one modern place name while absolutely all the (appropriate) maps universally use another. It's not going to happen. By the time all the modern big-name maps change from, say, Peking to Beijing or Bombay to Mombai, all the newspapers and such do the same. In fact, part of the reason the maps change is because those other sources change. So your concern is understandable but if you think about it not really a realistic problem. We don't want to let our article names get out of date with the modern place names. Chrisrus (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, there is no reason to prefer maps over other sources. So what's the point of this addition if the only situations where it would apply are so clear-cut anyway? —Frungi (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I broadly accept the principle behind the edit but also agree to some extent with the point that, however important they are for place names, we don't necessarily want to give maps the last word. Also, if we're going to recommend maps as a source – which I think we should – they should surely be included here at the Widely accepted name section rather than in the modern name section. Btw, it ill behoves Athenean to take the moral high ground here and swing in, immediately revert the addition and accuse Chrisrus of making this edit to bolster the case for moving Tenedos to Bozcaada – which is actually pretty incontrovertible anyway with or without this change here. Athenean is one of a small group of editors who have consistently vetoed that move, not least by quietly side-stepping the point that every serious modern map, and every other serious modern source, uses Bozcaada as the modern name for the island in question. (ps: I would disclose that I have also been involved in the Tenedos issue and that Chrisrus asked for my support here). N-HH talk/edits 08:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Think about it this way: Say you wanted to know the name of a place that may have changed. You’d probably check a modern big-name map. Then a teammate says he thinks that’s wrong, the name has not changed. You show him more of the latest maps, in fact pretty much all the big name map companies and societies and such, and they all agree.

If, having done that, your colleague says, “I’m still not satisfied. All those maps might not reflect usage in newspapers and books and so on. I will not be satisfied until we do all this tedious extra research.” Would that be reasonable way for him to be? There is no need for that. Surely you would begin to wonder is he being reasonable to demand such proof after having seen all the newest big name maps that the name has changed. (You might even question his motivations!)

What are the chances, realistically, that you are going to find that the news media won’t also be going along with the same name change as well as all the major maps? Has there ever been such a case where the maps make a modern place name change and the news media and such don’t also do so? If the maps all change to calling it, for example, Beijing not Peking anymore, the news media and such will be also be calling it that, too rest assured. Chrisrus (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no interest in the Tenedos/Bozcaada issue and this is certainly not the right place to discuss that. But there is no reason whatsoever why the format of a reliable source (map/book/official website/journal article/etc) should lead to it taking precedence over other reliable sources. Whatever the motives behind the edit, there is no consensus or established convention that supports the assertion that maps are somehow more authoritative than other formats. In fact many maps are downright unreliable - with the advent of Google Map Maker, Google Maps is now essentially a wiki of original research, as is OpenStreetMap; maps very rarely cite sources for the information they contain so assessing their validity is difficult, whereas written sources can usually be cross-checked and validated far more readily and can be more easily attributed to specific authors or organisations. To be clear I am not against using maps as sources but I am strongly against the assertion that they are inherently more reliable. WaggersTALK 08:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To Chrisrus: Again, why maps? Why should maps specifically be our go-to, rather than e.g. the news media, or indeed all up-tp-date sources? I don't think you've answered that basic question yet. All you've really argued for is that we should use modern sources, which kind of goes without saying for the section in question. —Frungi (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because bringing ALL modern media sources is huge and totally unnecessary and it doesn't work out in practice and not reasonable. This way is simple and fool-proof and reasonable and logical. When you want to know the modern name of a place, a map is the logical place to look and people have maps and can check them. People who want to know the names of islands and such look at maps. If there is some doubt, you can check more maps. If all the maps agree, continued discussion of what the modern name of a place is not reasonable. Why would anyone not be convinced by universal cartographic agreement? What kind of advice is it to continue looking for all kinds of modern references you could possibly come up with under the sun? What's the point, if the maps agree? Why should this guideline send the people off needlessly on searches for terms in books and newspapers and such and then having to go through each one of them to discuss the precise context to see which name is used in a primary way and or in a historical way and on and on and it's a big mess and horrible and what's the point? The maps can't all be simultaneously wrong, so you've had your answer long ago. You aren't going to find any difference anyway, the news media and such on the one hand will use the same name as the maps if all the maps agree. What's the point in continuing to look for the answer to a question if the answer is in front of you? It's not reasonable to doubt all the big name maps if they agree. It's asking too much to have them search through all other sources for no reason. It's asking for trouble and headache and heartache and hands to those who don't want the name to change a way to drag out the discussion long, long after it should have ended. It'd be so much better for the people to give them a reasonable and easy way to settle the matter if all the maps agree. Chrisrus (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In reply to Waggers, obviously we would be talking about serious atlases, such as say the Times Atlas of the World. While I wouldn't go as far as Chrisrus has done, and would also question whether maps should be given primacy, I don't see what we couldn't add something to the WIAN section to the effect that they are something that should be looked at, just as we currently say there, "1.Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta ...". As for Frungi's comment about modern sources, obviously we should rely on those, and the guidelines already make that clear. The problem is that with Tenedos, large numbers of sources written in modern times refer to the island in antiquity or medieval times, and their preponderance in Google Books numbers were – however spuriously – cited as defence for using the old name for the entry here. That would lead me to suggest that we should perhaps be even more explicit about what is already, one would have thought, pretty obvious at point 2 at WIAN about Google searches and "in relation to the period in question". N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No one here is suggesting that the search should continue if all maps agree. Please stop this sort of straw-man arguing. Now, you assert that if maps agree, then all up-to-date sources agree. So the question remains: Why should we look specifically at maps rather than at up-to-date sources overall? Why does the format matter? If what you say holds true, then it truly makes no difference whether we look at maps in particular or reliable sources in general. —Frungi (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Waggers, your objection could be taken care of by more specifically defining what "appropriate" maps are. If Google Maps is not an authoritative enough, we can specifically dis-recommend it. As for the rest of what you say, you are right, sometimes maps are wrong. But you haven't said that they can all be wrong about the same thing at the same time anymore nowadays. You just said that a map can be wrong about this or that, but not all of them simultaneously. That's not a realistic possibility. But we can also say, if we must, words to the effect of "barring some extraordinary evidence that all the major map companies got the same thing wrong at the same time...." Chrisrus (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Frungi, that seems reasonable, on the face of it, but in practice it's just so much harder and not practical. With maps, you just check them and see what they say and there's a handy index and such. How are the people supposed to determine universal agreement in, say, all the big name media or whatever? It's asking for Google searches that have to be checked by hand and not every place in the world is discussed in every newspaper in a recent way and there are all kinds of other problems with establishing that and it's not necessary when there is an easier way. We want these guidelines to be as simple as they can and no more difficult than they need to be. Chrisrus (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the contradictions you're now introducing (you've said multiple times that sources like newspapers invariably reflect a map consensus), how is it "harder" to have editors check any reasonably recent source that they may have access to than to have them check maps and nothing else? —Frungi (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: Your answer to the question "why maps" seems to be that maps are more readily accessible than other sources. I'm afraid that simply isn't true. If I wanted to know the official mordern name for a place I'd be far more likely to look at the official government / tourist board website for that location if they exist and look up local newspapers online than head off to my local library to borrow an atlas and consult it. Your argument isn't one in favour of maps, but in favour of readily available reliable sources. Sure, if I look at the first 10 reliable sources I come across and they all say the same thing, there's probably no need to look for an eleventh. The currency of those sources is worth considering - if they're all 50 years old but the 11th, 12th and 13th sources I find are all newer and say something different, there would be a case for using the latter sources rather than the first ten. But the point remains that the format of those sources - whether they're maps, newspapers, journal articles, etc. - is totally irrelevant, isn't it? WaggersTALK 09:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it may take a trip to the library, but at least that's doable. But as it stands, there's no way out as people can just keep searching all kinds of other sources one after another ad nauseum and it's never definitive and it never ends. It's this horrible black hole from which there's no escape and the people come here looking for a way out. At least this map way is a way out, of finding a definitive answer that should satisfy everyone who is being reasonable. Chrisrus (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But why maps? Why not newspapers? Why not official websites? Why not journal articles? If you're going to pick a format for which reliable sources you include and exclude completely arbitrarily, you may as well have a policy that says "Look at reliable sources beginning with A first, and only if they disagree look at those beginning with B, and so on." We're trying to build an encyclopaedia that's based on something a bit more reliable than arbitrary choices like that. Yes that means prolonged discussion, yes it means repeating the same argument every so often, and yes it means the decision might not go the way you want it to every time. But the end result is a credible product that we can justify, not one that's based on random, arbitrary choices. WaggersTALK 10:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the burden of proof has to lie with the proposer, in regard to their claim that one source is more authoritative than the other, map or not, and it has to be recognised that in some cases there may not be any clear authority regarding a single "correct" choice of name from those in common usage. -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Online maps can very easily be fed from Wikipedia or other non-relable sources itself. There are far more authoritative sources out there. If all we got is maps we are on thin territory anyway. I think the proposed addition should not be accepted. Maps do not trump other sources. Also we should never have a rule that elevates lower quality sources above higher quality ones. Agathoclea (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, we can easily dis-recommend any such online maps you describe. It just means we have to define what "appropriate maps" means clearly.

Second, if all the appropriate maps say the name of a place has changed from Littleton to Smallville, it's not reasonable to tell them that's not good enough, because it should be definitive enough for anyone. We shouldn't advise that, in cases when all the (appropriate) maps agree, they should keep looking, because it's not necessary and causes unnecessary problems. Looking through all newspapers, all magazines, and so on and so on, it's much harder because you have to scour each for usage in context, such as modernity and primacy. It's not necessary in such cases where the maps agree. To continue looking after twelve major map companies have already told you the answer is not reasonable. No one ever continues looking for their car keys once they have found them. It's about what to do when all the (appropriate) maps agree.

@Wagghat that may sound reasonable, but it turns out it is not. You see, not all newspapers and journal articles talk about all places. Some places are rarely discussed, and some not at all. That's not the case with maps. Over a certain size, every place is on all listed on appropriate maps, so when the implicit question is "How should we determine modern place names?", checking maps is good advice, because if they agree, there you have it.

Also, agreement among all the (appropriate) maps is a reasonable predictor that the papers and journals will as well, so it's not necessary in cases in which all the maps agree. The danger that all the (appropriate) maps will contradict journals and newspapers is not a reasonable worry.

Furthermore, there are so many millions of newspapers and journals, and a small number of appropriate maps should convince any objective party quickly. If you've found the same answer in multiple appropriate maps, you're done already. Run with it.

This is anything but "arbitrary". Imagine your job is to evaluate advice given by reference librarians. Someone comes in with coordinates for an island and asks her advice to how to find its modern place name. She directs him to the atlas collection and ensures that he finds the right ones. Has the she given him good, practical advice? Is there better advice for her to have given? What if together they find that all the appropriate maps agree, and she advises that he continue searching, and directs him to the LexisNexis or some such? How would you evaluate her performance in that case? Surely the trip to the atlas stand should suffice as a definitive answer.

Users of this guideline likely need help definitively finding the modern names of places. It's our job to give them good, practicable advice. In cases where it has already been established that all the major maps agree, we should suggest they accept that answer, and not suggest they check all the newspapers and journals and all other possible authoritative sources.

@Anome, I didn't say a survey of all the major maps was more authoritative than newspapers. I said it should be plenty authoritative enough, rendering the latter unnecessary given the existence of the former, at least for reasonable people. Why start a survey of all newspapers and such, which is much more complicated, when you've already done one of atlases and such? You are not helping the people resolve their problem but rather opening a needless can of worms.

@Everyone. Please. If the modern name of a place is in question by Wikipedians, we can suggest they check the appropriate maps and advise them that, if all the (appropriate) maps agree, there is no need to keep checking, to go endless searching in all conceivable authoritative sources, and inspect them all for such things as primacy and modernness in context, tabulate each, compensate for levels of authoritativeness we're supposed to determine, how about creating tables and charts and combine them all somehow and to get their final answer that way some day. That is just not reasonable in cases in which it has already been established that all the appropriate maps agree. In cases where all the maps agree, please let's suggest they accept that answer as that answer should be enough for any reasonable person. This is a sorely needed and greatly helpful addition for the people who are most in need of the guideline WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Chrisrus (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I’ve asked you before to please stop using straw man arguments that no one here is suggesting. Rather than the false choice you present, the choice I see is to require editors to go out and obtain maps while making sure they’re up-to-date, because maps are more authoritative than any other class of source for some unexplainable reason; or to allow editors to check whatever up-to-date sources may be available to them, which you’ve many times assured us would agree with the maps. —Frungi (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit was exactly the kind of step that B2C's "article title stability by algorithmic naming" program (User:Born2cycle#A goal: naming stability at Wikipedia) likes: algorithmatizing the titling process, instead of encouraging editors to consider relevant sources and principles. It essentially says WP "must follow maps"; it's not clear what problem this solves, or why editors need to have their discretion limited this way. Dicklyon (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

His logic for putting it back in is also completely backwards: "Now, the edit itself seems totally consistent with policy and widespread practice, and I see no substantive objection warranting its revert. Unless and until someone can express such objection, it should be restored." Now, we don't add arbitrary extra advice and constraints just because you believe it "seems totally consistent with policy and widespread practice". That's just WP:CREEPY. And if you "see no substantive objection warranting its revert", you're just not listening. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Imagine someone came to you wanting to determine the atomic weight of carbon. Suggesting consulting a periodic table of elements is good advice. You also might advise that, having checked the periodic table, there's no need to keep looking, because that's the answer, so there you have it. Is there anything else I can help you with? To say this to such a person is not tantamount to saying that the periodic table is the only possible way to find this out, or that there are no equally valid ways of arriving at that information, or that the periodic table is more authoritative than any other presentation of this information. Far from it: it is saying it's plenty authoritative enough. And a very good place to look, to find your answer, if you happen to have one. It is also irrational to keep looking elsewhere after having checked the periodic table for the atomic number of carbon. (Of course, you should check your table was published by a reputable organization). You could reassure the person that, having done so, there is no rational reason to bother looking elsewhere. If the periodic table says that the atomic number of carbon is twelve, there you have your answer - 12. Would you ask them to nevertheless continue searching maybe scholarly papers and such, for the atomic number of carbon? Why? No! There is no reason; you already have your answer from a source that is plenty authoritative enough. Now, is this the same as saying that the periodic table is more authoritative than a scholarly journal that might also be used to determine that it is 12? Of course not. It's just a good, logical, reasonable place to find that information definitively and relatively quickly and easily. The scholarly journal can be safely assumed to agree that the atomic number of carbon is twelve, just leave it alone, you are not going to find any disagreement there even if you looked.

In the same way, by saying that the modern place name can be definitively determined by looking at the appropriate maps, if they all agree, that is not the same as saying that maps are somehow more authoritative than any other equally authoritative way of determining modern place name. Such maps are, however, assuming they agree, a very good way of finding your answer. They are just a very good way that may be available to people that we should definitely recommend, because if there seems to be no disagreement about it among an appropriately wide survey of appropriate maps, there's no need to look any further, and we will have helped the people determine the modern name of a place to a degree that is plenty authoritative enough.

Again NOT more authoritative simply authoritative enough to arrive at a final answer once and for all, pity the poor user who just wants to find the answer, and let us let them move on to the next thing. In this way the addition constitutes improvement to this page.

So please, let's have no more of this stuff about "elevating the maps to a status above all other forms of information" and "limiting the users to just one form of information". This is to mischaracterize and overdramatize the meaning of the addition.

And remember, please, the purpose is to help the people trying determine the modern names of places in a definitive way, if possible. We are trying to help the people get to the answer for once and for all and move on. We shouldn't mystify the process or make it any harder than it has to be. Chrisrus (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a false analogy, as the atomic weight of an element, like any other scientific or mathematical constant, will not and cannot change. And you still persist with your straw man, as if anyone in this discussion has even implied that every possible source should be exhaustively checked. If you could stop undermining your points with this nonsense and actually provide a straight answer to the concerns brought against your proposal, that would be great.

But anyway, your proposed addition is not simply saying that we don’t have to consult other sources if maps agree. It’s instructing us not to consult other sources (which editors may have on hand or which may be more easily accessible), essentially taking that choice away from editors because you’ve unilaterally made it for them. Therefore:

I oppose the proposed addition as formulated. —Frungi (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And seriously, stop re-adding it when it’s clearly controversial and no one else is supporting it. —Frungi (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. I have reverted the latest attempt at introducing this rejected proposal. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, consider this your formal warning against edit-warring. There is clearly not currently consensus to include the idea, discussion is still on-going, and you are deeply involved in the dispute. DMacks (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The point about the periodic table was not that it is the same as a modern place name in that it can change. Obviously, the atomic weight of carbon is not subject to change, while a modern place name can. The point of the periodic table analogy when you are asked how to find out a specific type of information, if there is a place where such information is stored, one directs the questioner to that place. In the case of the atomic number (that its immutable is immaterial) is the periodic table. And the place one goes to determine a modern place name is an authoritative map. Or just to be absolutely sure, a reasonably wide survey of appropriate maps. Once the answer is found in either of these places, it becomes bad advice to suggest that the person begin Google Scholar searches or some such, as it would be to continue looking for your car keys even after you have found them. The goal of the addition is to suggest a way that the user of WP:MODERNPLACENAME can find the answer to question "what is the modern place name for these coordinates"? I ask you, what path do you suggest the modern place name seeker take? What is the straightest line, the safest course toward the guideline users goal, the modern name of a place? Do you actually maintain that a reasonable survey of the appropriate maps would be insufficient?

Now, of course, there may be other ways to determine modern place name. In fact, the last iteration of the addition just now, not the same at all as the previous one but radically revised to accommodate concerns on this page, said, and I quote:

"Good ways to determine the modern name of a place include consulting a variety of the latest maps. Care should be taken to ensure these maps are published only by highly respected companies, agencies, or societies in disparate parts of the English-speaking world. As universal agreement on one modern place name in a reasonably wide survey of such maps is a rational predictor that other authoritative sources do so as well, additional efforts to determine the common modern name into other authoritative sources are not reasonably necessary, absent clear evidence to the contrary. However, if such maps are found not to agree to a significant extent, further investigation may be necessary."

So it is simply not true that the addition insists that maps are the one and only way to successful determination of the modern name of a place. It simply states that good ways to do it include using maps. Maybe you didn't see it, but if that was your problem with it, it's not a problem anymore. You should support it now. So let there be no more talk of "denying them other possible routes to modern place name" or "saying that maps are the only way". That's demonstrably false. We are simply saying that one way to get to your ostensible goal, (i.e.: determining the modern name of a place), one good way we might suggest that can get you there is to check a reasonable survey the latest maps, and that should (and we can add "barring some strange unforeseen circumstance" is authoritative enough. Please agree that such a thing is authoritative enough.

I am very glad you seem to disagree that "every possible source should be exhaustively checked." Indeed, that is not reasonable. But maybe you'd be surprised how far these things have gone. Without clear guidelines as to when they can stop and say "Eureka, we have found the modern place name!" That is what the reader of the guideline needs. S/he needs to know how to determine the modern place name without having to exhaustively check every possible source. S/he needs reasonable advice so that, in case something happens, such as, just for example, there is a group of people who refuse to accept a name change for some reason, which as you probably know, can happen, they will not be able to stretch out the debate endlessly and disallow the update indefinitely. So we must give the reader a reasonable path to modern place name. I have offered one way to that end, only, it is true. Namely, check a maps, or a bunch of maps, good, modern maps. That's a darn good way to find the modern name of a place, and it's authoritative enough to do the job and should be convincing enough to anyone, except maybe one who refuses to accept the name change for some reason. I have in no way discouraged you from offering another, alternative path to determining modern place name. If you have some other idea how the reader can arrive at the modern place name that you think will help the people asking for one, please, hold back no longer. But that is no argument that one such path should not be included.

So let there be no more talk of this addition "taking choices away" in terms of determining modern place names. The last iteration presented the map survey method as merely "ONE GOOD WAY" to arrive at a conclusion, which in no way excludes the existence of others. And please do add others you can think of that might be even better than the map survey method. Chrisrus (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that at this moment I haven’t read most of your reply. But this bit seemed to jump out at me: “S/he needs to know how to determine the modern place name without having to exhaustively check every possible source.” How about common sense? If a decent number of reasonably recent sources (whatever the format) all give the same name, it seems to me that common sense would say that’s enough. Likewise, if a decent number of reasonably recent sources have conflicting information, common sense would usually say to wait on a change from status quo until it’s more stable. If some editors persist in continuing to search for more and more sources in either of these cases, I would hazard a guess that the problem is those editors, not the guidelines. —Frungi (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I haven’t seen any iterations of your proposed addition being presented here. (Please note that proposed or amended changes are usually presented on Talk pages where they can get feedback, and not repeatedly re-added to project pages.) —Frungi (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Scroll up where it says "Good ways to determine the modern name of a place include... See this is why you should read things before responding. Otherwise it's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refusal to listen. Chrisrus (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you’re right, I didn’t see that. But I would argue that this is why you should pay attention to formatting your Talk page comments (maybe format the quote with italics, a bullet, <blockquote>, or {{tq}}) and be concise. But anyway, what you quote seems much better to me than what you originally added, but I still disagree with how it seems to value maps more highly than other appropriate sources. Please see User:N-HH’s proposed change to a different paragraph in the section below this one; I think it elegantly solves both that problem and this. —Frungi (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose the notion that maps should be the primary principal source for geographic names. The primary principal source should be Reliable Sources writing in prose. Current encyclopedias, Reliable Source newspapers and newsmagazines, and current scholarly writing would all be better sources than maps, for numerous reasons. For one, mapmakers often truncate a name to make it fit into a given space. For another, maps are not as linkable online as prose sources. I don't know anything about the alleged dispute about a particular name that some folks here are citing, and it is irrelevant anyhow; this is a bad idea by any standard. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, just in case of any potential confusion: I’m sure Melanie means “primary” in importance, rather than the WP:PSTS meaning. —Frungi (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks. Rewording. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Edit war. I have protected the page for 24 hours before someone gets a 3RR block. Please establish a consensus here about what should or should not be included on the project page. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Anyway our policies and guidelines where designed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. As such - while I personally agree with the issue of naming the island that started this whole affair - it is wrong to change policies and guidelines to go back to that artice in order to say "look policy/guideline x says we have to have it my way." Rather we want to reflect the reality of RMs. When enaugh discussions out there agree with your point then it should be added here. Sadly the cluster of policy and guideline pages has been taken overrun by those who don't get it their way in article discussions and want to force their way of thinking by way of degree. Agathoclea (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Melanie, that is completely unnecessary and not workable in practice. We need at least one reasonable, rational way for the people to arrive at what should be a very straightforward matter. Going and checking and weighing all the things you suggest is really bad advice unless the goal is to mystify arriving at the modern place name or prolonging doing so indefinately.

Huh? This is the rule for everything on Wikipedia: base the information on Reliable Sources. That's what I'm saying: no more, no less. In general I do think prose/text sources are more useful for this purpose than maps. I'm not proposing to add any such wording to the guideline here, and I'm not saying we should rule out maps; they could have their place. But they certainly should not be the main or first thing we rely on. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agatha, I really don't care what the name of that tiny little island is. It really doesn't matter, it's just an insignificant place that has nothing to do with me. The important thing is the systemic flaw(s) that it brings to the fore, like the problem that WP:MODERNPLACENAME simply says to use the modern place name, but gives no explanation of how it may be rationally and reasonably determined. In any case, your objection is not valid because it doesn't matter how a person becomes aware of the need for something to be done, what matters is if it needs doing and how. So while you may oppose that maps should be the primary source, do not oppose that they can be and please admit that they can. If there are other ways such as you describe of arriving at the modern place name, please by all means lets tell the user all about it as well. Give them more options apart from using maps and help them do it. All I want is a reasonable, workable, sane policy that doesn't result in such confusion and leave some hope of ever being able to determine the modern name of a place. There has to be some way to determine modern place names, it shouldn't be so hard. You are making this out to be a much bigger deal than it is. We simply need to say that one way of determining a modern place name is the obvious one, checking the (appropriate) maps. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're the only one here who thinks that's the "obvious" way. To the rest of us, the obvious way is not "checking the (appropriate) maps" but "checking the (appropriate) reliable sources" regardless of format. You've been asked many times to explain why maps should take precedence over other formats and have failed to do so. I think it's also fair to say that in this discussion we've established quite a strong consensus against your proposal. Unless there's anything genuinely new to bring to the discussion I think we're done here. WaggersTALK 07:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal re maps/atlases

At the risk of prolonging this, but also in the spirit of compromise and also because there is a kernel of a point here, how about simply adding to the list currently at Widely accepted name:

• "Consult English-language maps and atlases, such as the Times Atlas of the World etc ...."

Regardless of any debate about the primacy or priority of individual types of sources, that seems a sensible and uncontroversial piece of advice. On the rare occasions that there is dispute between sources and even between different types of sources, and someone provides evidence of that, that's going to have to be settled on a case by case basis. N-HH talk/edits 09:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me. WaggersTALK 09:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Chrisrus (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the current version of Widely accepted name I don't really see the need. Any place that does not have an English-language footprint apart from maps does not have a widely used English exonym. Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the idea is less to say "you might need to look in an atlas because you won't find it anywhere else" than to say "here's another option for somewhere to look, either to start with or in addition if necessary" (and yes, it would also allow for the fact that, in the event of dispute, atlases do carry some weight alongside the other sources already suggested). I agree it's not necessary to include atlases there, but it's not really necessary to include any of the current listed suggestions either. They have the advantage/status of being the ones that already happen to be there, and you can say "let's just leave it as it is", but there's potential benefit and no obvious harm in adding another reasonable suggestion. N-HH talk/edits 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the harm in that the simple use of a map will be used to cut a discussion short that otherwise would have gone a different discussion. Or worse: Just imagine the Croation costal place xyz. No reference whatsoever in English literature. There is an English tourist map identifying a Smuggler's Port at the location. Can we even be sure the place is meant or a tourist attraction within/nearby? That is why I don't like the idea to codify any map preference over reliable sources in general. If the relevant discussion looks at the map, finds it reliable and identifies it as the WP:COMMONNAME then it is fine. But I bet there will be a lot of places where tourist map usage differs from Literature and/or where it is so obscure that we stick with the native name anyway Agathoclea (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies but I'm really not sure that I follow the overall point you're trying to make or thread of the argument. Just to clarify in response to two specific things you've said, although I'd have thought that this alternative proposal was pretty clear already: 1) this is not about "tourist maps" but about professionally published atlases, which can be specified in the same way that particular encyclopedias are in the current list; and 2) in any event there is no intent to "codify" a "preference" for such maps over reliable sources in general. N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion and I support it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. I think that the list could do with an overall run through and copyedit as well, for example: I'd actually merge encyclopedias, atlases, dictionaries and factbooks into one group, described as "reference tools"; be more specific about the potential failings of Google counts; and drop the repetitive "it is widely accepted" conclusion at the end of each line. I'll hold off that as some people may think that is more controversial than it seems to me. N-HH talk/edits 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Revised addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME

I will make an addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME soon, probably today. It will take into account the objections and suggestions made in the above section, thank you for the constructive criticism. Please do not remove the addition, but, as always, feel free to edit.

Let me explain.

The purpose of the addition is to help users determine the modern name of a place without so much difficulty should there be disagreement. Disagreement among Wikipedians can exist without disagreement among the sources.

This may seem unnecessary, because everyone should already know that how to determine a modern place name; it's just common sense. But please be aware that there can be disagreements about modern place names, and that in such cases, people do look to this guideline to spell this out for them.

I will broaden "maps" to include all such resources where place names are stored and may be found without the need for extensive research and analysis for such factors as commonality, modernness, primacy, and bias.

I will be careful to add that, if the maps and such do not agree, resources which require such contextual analysis can always be resorted to, but if the maps and such agree, that should not normally required or necessary, there's no need for that, because what's the point? You already have your answer, and, barring some clear evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that such other sources won't differ either.

I will wait a reasonable amount of time before making the addition and hear you out in good faith, but the mere existence of opposition should not be a factor, that is to be expected and allowed for. For example, sometimes the name of a place changes and many people don't like it. They protest and refuse to accept the new name. However, this doesn't have to be taken into account unless it translates into disagreement in the objective, authoritative sources in which it is widespread practice and good advice to check first before resorting to resources requiring extensive research and contextual analysis.

I'm sorry for being too WP:BOLD and unclear earlier, thank you again for your helpful criticism, apologize for being too WP:BOLD and for my habit of making it's/its mistakes and such. Chrisrus (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than simply declaring that you are going to attempt another addition and asking people not to remove it, can I suggest that the energy you've spent on posting a lengthy prebuttal might have been better spent actually spelling out what you are proposing, ie saying "this is the text that I would like to add"? That seems especially advisable given the broadly negative reaction seen in the rather exhausting thread above to your initial edit and the fact that it sparked an edit war and protection of the page. N-HH talk/edits 17:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My question is: Why does it need such an addition? In particular one that needs several careful caveats is not a simplification but an invitation to wikilawyering. Agathoclea (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I have to agree with N-HH. Standard practice for controversial changes like this is to post on the Talk page about your intention, as you have done here, but also post the proposed change on the Talk page, as you have not done once. It’s normally something like, “I propose adding the following paragraph: [paste]”. —Frungi (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. The first sentence I'd add might go something like this:

"Universal agreement on a modern place name in a reasonably wide survey of authoritative, up-to-date English-language atlases and other such reference materials constitutes sufficient authority to definitively determine the modern name of a place."

I'd like to leave it at that, actually. It could even be made tighter and shorter.

I suppose we could add that there are other ways as well, but hope that it's not necessary. For example:

"Although other, equally authoritative sources, such as books and news reports, may also be used, doing so can be problematic, at times requiring much careful inspection of each usage in context for such factors as commonality, primacy, and modernity, as well as assigning proper weight to each (see WP:DONTJUSTCOUNT), and should not be reasonably necessary if it has already been determined that all the appropriate maps and other such reference materials agree on a modern place name."

@Agathoclea, I could see where you'd think that this would not be necessary, that it should go with out saying. But it sometimes is necessary, as it turns out. There are sometimes disagreements about modern names of places that need resolution, a way to find an answer to the question "What's the modern name of this place?" that become unnecessarily complicated.

For example, there can be sometimes groups of Wikipedians who refuse to accept that the name of a place has changed; who don't want it to have changed. These feelings can be so strong that some can actually look at one map after another showing the name has changed, yet still demand more proof and more and more and it never ends without some reasonable stopping point spelled out. People will come here looking for reasonable guidelines to help them with this. So that's why it's necessary to say that, if all the maps and such agree on the modern name of a place, that's enough for any reasonable, disinterested person. Chrisrus (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've said once before, it sounds to me that in such cases the problem is the people, not the guidelines. Someone who's hell-bent on moving the goalposts isn't very likely to accept someone else's explicitly setting the goalposts. —Frungi (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to support the idea that maps (as in professional atlases) would be the best place to look for the modern name of a location. They are a good buffer from the immediacy of newspaper articles and such that could rename places back and forth several times, yet they are able to stay more current than books or encyclopedias. Since maps, by their nature, are designed primarily for clarity of information about places, their information would seem to be best for determining the clearest name for a location. Books and newspapers can both find themselves the subject of bias. You'll probably not find too many Greek newspapers referring to Northern Cyprus, as but one example of where territorial disputes will result in different names used in journalism. I'm sure it would have been easy to do google scholar and book searches around 2000 to 'prove' that Zaire was the preferred name for the country renamed the DR of the Congo in 1997.

So I'd say maps are good because their goal is the same as the wikipedia article title, maximum clarity. Dworjan (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, thank you for posting your proposed change here for discussion. I was afraid you were about to go off on your own again. That's really inappropriate for a guideline page like this, which says right at the top of the page "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." This subject has been discussed now for several days, and I certainly don't see consensus for your idea that atlases and such should be able to trump all other Reliable Sources and render them irrelevant. If anything I see substantial disagreement with that position. But now that you have posted your revised version of the same proposal, which still amounts to "maps über alles", let's see how people feel about it. Personally I disagree and feel that text-based sources are generally preferable to maps/atlases for the reasons I stated above. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not in principle opposed to consulting atlases and maps published by reliable sources along with all other types of reliable sources, however, I am strongly opposed to anything suggesting giving precedence to maps and atlases over other types of reliable sources. Whether the maps and atlases are in agreement or not is irrelevant. Maps and atlases are but one of many types of sources used in determining a modern place name, and I thus disagree with the above proposal. Athenean (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Frungi, it's because of such people that we need a guideline describes a good, simple rational, reasonable way to find the modern name of a place.

@Dworjan, thanks, I'm glad you agree. Google Scholar and Books searches are great for some things, but completely superfluous in cases in which we've checked 12 major Atlases and such and they all agree on a name.

@Melanie, please look it back over again. There's nothing there that says you can't find place names in some other way such as Lexis/Nexis searches and whatnot. That's still in the guideline that we can go that route if you really want to for some reason. It just says that if all the maps and such agree on a name, that's authoritative enough. You already have your answer. This doesn't imply that there aren't other, perhaps equally authoritative sources for this information, such as encyclopedias or whatnot. There are. It does, however, imply that, if maps and such agree, we can safely assume they other authoritative sources will say exactly the same thing. If they were different, which they won't be, it would be a case of one thing trumping another, but there is no reason to suspect that if The Prestigious University On-Line Internet Geographical Information Database and The Authoritative Atlas of the World and a bunch more such sources all agree that the capital of Elbonia is Mucktent, at some point, further looking is not rationally going to give you a different answer. So if both methods are giving you the same answer, nothing is trumping anything. In order for you to be disagreeing with this addition, you should show that there is some rational reason to keep looking in cases in which the atlases and such have already been checked and they all agree; that universal cartographic consensus is not good enough to say that the answer has been found.

Advising one way that they may arrive at a name doesn't imply that there is no other way, only that this is one good way, and that, having done that that they will have their answer. So they don't have to keep looking for this information in cases in which someone has checked the appropriate maps and such and they all agree, because there's no point in continuing to look for your car keys after you already have them in your hand. So unless you are saying that there is some rational possibility that Google Books searches and such will give you a different answer than a dozen or so of the appropriate maps, you have not addressed the point substantively with this talk of "maps trump all" and "atlas uber alles". Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that atlases don't have a role to play, and if that has been challenged somewhere, it wouldn't hurt to specifically include atlases and maps in the list of suggested sources - as per N-HH's suggestion above which is a good one. What I AM saying is that we should not have a rule saying "this kind of source is capable of overruling other types of source". In fact I can't think of any other area of Wikipedia that has such a rule. If you have a content or titling dispute where the atlases all agree but some people insist on using other sources to disagree, there are ways to resolve that; see WP:Dispute resolution. But it is not appropriate to try to change the rule book to favor one point of view over another, and there does not appear to be consensus here for such a change. --MelanieN (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at this from another direction. Name an article where we would benefit from this addition. Agathoclea (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Any article in which there is some question as to the modern name of a place. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't disagree with the premise, ie that dedicated up-to-date reference works, such as encyclopedias, geographic databases and atlases are the best resource to look for the names of places. Any serious generalist publisher would refer to such authorities when deciding what form to use for places rather than, say, direct its writers and editors to perform a Google Book search and see what comes up in every passing mention in novels, children's books, books about ancient history etc. At the very least, per my suggestion in the previous sub-thread, atlases and maps should certainly be included as one of the options suggested at the widely accepted name section.

However, along with others, I remain wary of anything that directs people to rely solely on one limited type of source, whether maps or anything else. First, in a wiki environment you can't stop other contributors from choosing to look at other sources and flagging up any apparent divergence. Even if people don't "need" to look elsewhere, someone always will. Secondly, what if atlases do indeed all agree on one form, but news media and common generalist usage almost universally genuinely disagree with that? There would be a case there for going with what the less specialised and technical sources prefer and I don't think we should rule out that possibility.

Ultimately I don't see that this kind of change is going to suddenly bring clarity to lots of disputes that are otherwise going to fester. There simply aren't going to be that many where it would need to be invoked and even when that did happen and it was, as noted above, I'm not sure it would necessarily lead to the best solution. Looking at the Tenedos example in particular, that's simply happened because a small minority have simply seized on an odd skew in the raw Google Book hit numbers, and have rather conveniently ignored the strictures in this guideline that ask people to "look at [the content of] search results, don't just count them" and to only take those that relate to "the period in question". N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to help them get a definitive answer in the most efficient way possible. A good reference librarian would send them to the atlases and such first, and only send them to the Lexis/Nexis machine if those disagreed. Its irrational to keep looking in more problematic places if there's no disagreement in the less problematic places. Therefore, you need not be wary of the things you say you are wary of. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important in the case of geographical place names that we emphasize current reference works. I feel like that is the gist of the proposal here. Current reference works (like encyclopedias, geographic databases and atlases) are the best barometer of current naming. Newspapers can frequently suffer from the issue of being too immediate and too involved. Biases may be present, and there is no insulation from rapid changes in evolving situations. Google book and scholar searches have the opposite issue, they may not be affected by current usage. Any books or scholarly papers written about historical events or situations will use the name of a place at the time of the events, which is not a good starting point to determine the current usage, ie. usage in a current book does not equate to current use. So in order to use these google book and scholar searches as starting points for determining current name requires a lot of wikipedian interpretation. As such, those searches should be de-emphasized in determining current place names. That leads us back to using reference works as our primary resource. Place names in the aforementioned reference works are chosen by the same "what are people today calling the place" standard that we are looking for here with our article titles.

I looked at the talk page at Tenedos this afternoon, and it is now apparent why this is such an issue. Relatively insignificant places that have a huge contribution to history for some brief moment will receive much more coverage in books and scholarly works about that time period than about the current moment. This means that books written today will continue to add "weight" to the historical name in google searches. If we used google book/scholar searches, the Oświęcim article would forever be titled Auschwitz, Gdansk would probably be stuck at Danzig for a while longer, and Bozcaada is stuck at Tenedos. Dworjan (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right about almost everything you say. Just I hope that I can get you to concentrate on which authoritative sources are less problematic and which authoritative sources are more problematic, and re-focus you on the point, which is to help people get to an answer efficiently. Atlases and maps and their modern electronic equivalents are less problematic than encyclopedias and such because you don't have to go through and check for usage in context. Encyclopedias and news reports and such require the user to go through and check each usage by hand for modernity, primacy, and commonality and such, a process that can be longer, more difficult, and is subject to personal interpretation. Also, not all places are mentioned in all such sources, so there's no guarentee there will be answer there. But all appropriate maps show all places over a certain size. Therefore, if you will accept this analogy, a good reference librarian will send you to the Atlas stand first and only if those do not agree will send you to the encyclopedias. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added some emphases below for the purposes of this discussion. Please understand that they would be removed in the main space:

"One way of definitively arriving at the modern name of a place is to conduct a reasonably wide survey of authoritative, up-to-date English-language atlases and other such reference materials in which geographical information is housed. If universal agreement in such sources is found, such evidence is sufficient authority to definitively determine the modern name of a place."

Notice it does not say that this is the 'only way. It does not say that sufficient = only source of. It does not say that, if another name is found to predominate in other , perhaps equally authoritative types of sources (not a realistic possibility), that a name found one way would "trump" a name found in another. Chrisrus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Definitively" and "sufficient" still sound rather absolute. IMO you are still trying to codify your idea that atlases are a more important, more reliable, more definitive source than other Reliable Sources on this topic. Aren't you? --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do here. You just want to simplify things for everyone by imposing simple rules and limitations, so that things can get done more quickly and with minimal fuss. The problem with that is—and I hope you understand this—you're imposing limitations. Even if you don't mean to, that's what you're doing here; you're actively discouraging people from referring to other sources if your preferred choice of sources are in agreement. There is a very thin line between saying "you don't have to keep looking" and "don't keep looking." Editors should be free to research however they want, using whatever suitable sources they want.

To this particular formulation: It would be fine, I think, if you offered more than a single method. With just the one, it seems somewhat more like a thinly-veiled limitation than a helpful suggestion. —Frungi (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the best way to would be to say something like "The best method for determining the modern place name of a particular location is to consult a variety of disinterested, authoritative reference sources such as encyclopedias, geographic databases, and atlases and maps. Newspapers and magazines may also help to inform the editor on the modern place name, but the editor should be careful to avoid newspapers or magazines that would be likely to have a bias toward supporting a particular name. Searches on Google Books and Google Scholar should be used with caution, as even modern works may use historical place names in the context of the work."Dworjan (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support this wording. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support this wording as progress, but encourage thought about lumping encyclopedias in with the geographic databases, atlases, and maps because in the case of the former, not all places over a certain size are going to have their own articles or even be mentioned, and each usage must be gone through and checked for usage in context including primacy and historical vs. modern referees. Therefore, in cases in which the maps and such disagree, we should send them to the encyclopedias and such for more research, but not if not. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And that is excactly what was objected to earlier. Maps do not have priority. Agathoclea (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the bit that gave priority to maps. I have no problem with "Consult maps and atlases..." but "If they are are in agreement, that is the modern name" is a step too far. Also, WP:SEVEN is meant to be humorous, not to be taken seriously, as is clearly mentioned in the disclaimer at the very top of that page. Athenean (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, the only way you're going to get any agreement on giving priority to one type of source over others is to state why those sources should have priority over the others. I think my proposal is getting a bit of acceptance, because it doesn't unequivocally state right and wrong sources, and it states why certain sources are better, and why other sources have limitations. If you want to come up with a way to state that when using encyclopedias the editor still needs to take care that the article is referring to the modern place, then I think we'd all agree to having that included. We just can't state "here's where you'll find the modern name of a place, other sources be damned." Even if that is true, it has to be phrased better. Dworjan (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to copy-and-paste that text from #2 to #1, not cut-and-paste it. I have restored it now. Please have a look at the numbered list, and notice how each ends with a similar sentence. #1 is the only one which does not have this, so let's fix that as soon as possible. I will wait a reasonable amount of time to see what you all think before going ahead and doing it myself.

About WP:SEVEN, yes, it is supposed to be funny, but it also is supposed to make an important point. Nationalists are inevitable and they can be counted on not to accept place names from time to time and to cause much disagreement and resorting to this guideline. Many of you will be familiar with the cases with the Sea of Japan, the Persian Gulf, and other such cases, but not all such places are famous and many may not be noticed by so many people as those. Now, of course, there may be other reasons a person might refuse to accept that the name of a place has already been found, but you will agree that WP:SEVEN is one of the big ones. That is why this guideline spells out reasonable stopping point at which we can say that the name has been found, such as "when absolutely all the sources agree, use that name" again and again on WP:WIAN, except the new map one, so please fix that today. Otherwise, people such as nationalists will be able to block decisions by insisting on more and more convoluted and problematic research long past the point that objectively the answer has already been found.

However, I probably shouldn't have used that edit summary. A better summary would state that it is unreasonable to keep looking for the modern place name once you've found complete agreement on all the appropriate maps. Chrisrus (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested upstairs, the line "... it is widely accepted" should probably be removed from all the bullet points, if only on a copyediting/repetition basis. Either have it apply to everything or nothing. I would also suggest to Athenean (and a few others no doubt watching) that if a few Greek and classical-nostalgist editors hadn't so vociferously objected to calling a modern Turkish island by its generally accepted – and yes, official Turkish, as it so happens – name, this huge flame-up would have never have occurred, the broader issue could have been approached a bit more rationally and everyone on this page would have been spared a lot of spillover grief. N-HH talk/edits 21:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to do the same thing differently, that's fine. But right now the way it does it is this: We give each way of finding the name of a place a little sentence after it, saying at what point one can have gotten the answer. I would just like to do the same for the atlases and such. If we give the reader some idea of the threshold point at which the name can be reasonably determined for the encyclopedias and all the other routes to the answer the guideline user presumably seeks, you can't rightly deny the same to the atlases and such. Please answer this question: Why should all routes to the answer have a sentence setting about reasonable thresholds except the atlases and such? Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Second, please consider whether it would not be better to avoid direct reference to any specific case here. I can imagine that this might explain some of the opposition to such reasonable edits as these, it might be best, don't you think, to focus ourselves on any place about the name of which there is disagreement, and helping the guideline user the answer he presumably seeks, no matter where in the world it may be. Chrisrus (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on this whole conversation, I will soon add a bit to WP:MODERNPLACENAME to the effect of "To find the modern name of a place, follow WP:WIAN but check for modern usage in context." As always, feel free to edit, but please do not revert without somehow achieving the same goal in some other, perhaps even better, manner. Second, I will add to WP:WIAN a sentence to the Atlas route item just like those all the other routes have, giving the guideline user some kind of reasonable threshold for modern place name determination. Up to this moment, we had only been thinking about setting it at %100 agreement, but please let's think about whether it would be an even more helpful guideline if we were to set that threshold at a slightly different point. The purpose here is to improve the advice we give here to those trying to definitively determine the modern name of a place. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest move

A couple of days ago Chrisrus changed the order of the possible sources listed under "Widely accepted name". That section used to list encyclopedias first, followed by maps and atlases. With this edit Chrisrus moved maps and atlases into first place, ahead of encyclopedias, with the edit summary Less problematic before more problematic sources. (see talk). I don't remember any consensus being reached here that maps and atlases are less problematic or encyclopedias are more problematic. And I don't remember any proposal or discussion to change the order of those listings in the guideline. IMO this looks like just another attempt by Chrisrus to impose their notion that maps and atlases are the most important source for this purpose. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I also reverted the two latest edits by Chrisrus because one introduced the notion that atlases may be the only determining factor for a name, despite the lack of consensus on the matter, and the other was instruction creep. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

<<--Begin edit conflict with my reply not indented below. Replies indented beyond this point not read by me at this reading, so sorry if they turn out to be already dealt with.Chrisrus (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)-->>

I do think we could add If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted. to the maps and atlases section. That is the same wording as for "standard histories and scientific studies," identifying them as a way to establish that a name is widely accepted. It is not quite as strong as the wording used for current encyclopedias, namely If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I just added it per your suggestion. Thank you Melanie. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming more problematic. We provide one example of an acceptable map/atlas and yet we say if they agree. So any others have to agree with the preferred one? How many have to agree? Changes to the guideline should not be made until after a discussion has run for a while and suggested changes can be worked out and understood! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it for reworking. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The statements "(The edit) introduced the notion atlases may be the only determining factor for a name" and implied "that atlases are the only cirterion for determining a name” to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=568241607&oldid=568233482 are both factually incorrect. That edit did not change the fact that in WP:WIAN atlases are clearly only one of many methods for arriving at the modern name of a place, not the only one. No justification for the revision is found here, because that edit demonstrably did not introduce or contain such a notion.

“Too much instruction creep. Looks too formulaic and could actually hinder consensus” to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=568241731&oldid=568241607 does not justify reverting that edit either.

First, to call the addition "instruction creep" is to call the edit "unnecessary". Yet its revision removes all help arriving at the modern name of a place. Are you calling any such help unnecessary? The widely used name, WP:WIAN, offers such help, so if it's necessary there, why not here? All we have to do is direct the person asking "what's the modern name of this place" to the place where we offer help finding the widely used name, and say "do the same, except hold for modern vs. historical usages in context. The removal of that addition leaves the modern place name section merely advising use of the modern place name and justifiying that advice, but giving no help at all how such a name might be found. The purpose of the edit is to help the guideline user find the modern name of a place in a good, efficient way. The modern section like the widely used section should both offer help finding names, not just one of them.

Now, there may be many cases of "instruction creep" in these guidelines; much that could be tightened up or eliminated. But addition of help finding the modern place name cannot be rightly termed "unnecessary" as that help is a necessary part of WP:MODERNPLACENAME.

Secondly, calling that edit "too formulaic" begs some explanation, please. I know that's a bad thing to say about a pop song or some such, but it's not always a criticism. Imagine calling a mathematical problem or a chemistry thesis "too formulaic", "formulaic" is a good thing for a guideline to be. Surely if the goal is to provide ways to find the modern name, providing something that could be called "formulae" for doing so is exactly what the guideline should do. I've heard the term "too formulaic" used to criticize art for being dull and unimaginative, but this is a guideline, not a pop song or something demands novelty to achieve quality, so it's unclear how being "too formulaic" is a valid critique in this context. If the "formulae" for arriving at the widely accepted name are good enough for the guideline, why should the modern place name section not use them as well, while checking for modern/historical usage in context?

Third, How is having recommendations as to how to determine the modern name of a place going to "hinder consensus". Without this addition, the guidelines are left with no path at all to the modern names of places. Imagine there is disagreement at an article about the modern place name. You come here looking for help finding the answer. Without this addition, the guideline just instruct users to use the modern names of places and explains why and so on, but says nothing at all about how to arrive at them. The user is given no help. This would leave the guideline users with no help at all out of disagreements that might arise as to what the modern name of a place is, thereby potentially delaying consensus needlessly.

As for "No consensus for the interpretation as "less problematic"" to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=568242669&oldid=568241731 Problems with encyclopedias not present with atlases include the following:

1. Appropriate maps will contain all pretty much all places over a certain size, whereas encyclopedias only have articles about a much smaller number of notable places.
2. Encyclopedias must be checked for such things as historical vs. modern usage in context, a a problem not encountered if you choose the appropriate maps.
3. Other problems include the lack of a handy index in which every modern place name mentioned anywhere in the entire work.

To put the encyclopedias before the atlases is bad reference-librarian-style advice. A good reference librarian would send the modern place name seeker to the atlases before the encyclopedias. It's widespread common practice for very many very good reasons. Please be reasonable.

Therefore, I will restore all three edits. The mere existence of disagreement is not enough. The disagreements must make sense, be germane, address real concerns, and not rely on demonstrably untrue claims to fact. Disagreement may be caused by many things, not all valid: someone having their back up or nose out of joint, or something, or the very real and serious phenomenon that the jocular essay WP:SEVEN refers to, as is well-known at such articles as Sea of Japan and Persian Gulf, and/or many more possible reasons for disagreement to these edits might exist apart from them not constituting guideline improvement. So unless the disagreement is not mere disagreement but rather based in good evidence and valid reasoning, it should be ignored. Chrisrus (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, please note again the notice at the top of this guideline page: Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. You do not have consensus for these edits, and right now you have three people opposing them. Your own opinion that you are right, or your feeling that you have made your case to your own satisfaction, is not consensus. You need to STOP making changes in the guideline page without first getting some kind of consensus for the new wording at this page. That behavior on your part is becoming disruptive. If you unilaterally restore these changes of yours, or if you persist in altering the guideline without consensus, I am going to be tempted to go to AN/I and suggest that you should be topic-banned from this guideline and talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Melanie that you cannot edit-war your changes against consensus. Your arguments have failed to persuade editors and you cannot unilaterally impose these edits on a longstanding guideline without solid consensus and thorough examination of your edits. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As we currently sit I see us as sitting on opposite sides of a divide. It is apparent that the if-then formula of "check the maps and if they agree then you have your modern name; if not then..." and so on won't be accepted no matter how exactly it is tweaked. That being the case, I'm going to propose my earlier wording as a starting point we can work from, as it tends to emphasize maps and atlases , while not providing any proscriptions against using particular sources. It allows the editor to choose from several options where to look for relevant information on the modern name of a place, but explains why some sources are good and some are not necessarily as good. The thing is that this is a "Guideline" and as such we want to "guide" an editor to a good outcome, not force them through a procedure.

[Earlier proposal copied here for clarity. I know it is only a rough starting point, but hopefully it is a starting point that produces more productive debate.]"The best method for determining the modern place name of a particular location is to consult a variety of disinterested, authoritative reference sources such as encyclopedias, geographic databases, and atlases and maps. Newspapers and magazines may also help to inform the editor on the modern place name, but the editor should be careful to avoid newspapers or magazines that would be likely to have a bias toward supporting a particular name. Searches on Google Books and Google Scholar should be used with caution, as even modern works may use historical place names in the context of the work." Dworjan (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your approach, especially with your statement: The thing is that this is a "Guideline" and as such we want to "guide" an editor to a good outcome, not force them through a procedure. which was exactly what I was thinking about when I called the previous approach "formulaic". Plus I would like to point out that the approach taken so far to edit-war the changes into the guideline is completely unacceptable and makes a mockery out of BRD. In addition no one should prescribe solutions to naming disputes by edit-warring against consensus. This is not how guidelines are created. As was noted before, any new proposal must be given ample time to be hushed out and gain consensus before it gets added into the actual guideline. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeating what I said above: I support Dworjan's proposed wording. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. Copy-editing nitpick: I would remove the word "and" before "atlases". --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I also find it much better than what I removed recently. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not right. You have not addressed the substance of any of my points about the grounds on which my recent edits were undone, about how each was improper or incorrect. Please address the substance of what I said and engage in proper substantive dialogue.

As to how I have done things, there has been no edit-warring at all. It was all done standard bold, revert, discuss (substantively), repeat. Each following edit I have made has been different from the last because it has taken into account criticisms and such from this thread. I have listened, responded, listened, and responded, each time taking into account the valid points and arguments and making it acceptable. So you cannot rightly say that I did not take it to the talk page first after the initial edit. There is a procedure of bold, revert, and discuss, that makes Wikipedia, the encyclopedia which anyone is free to edit, work. If no one substantively addresses the points I've made above, after allowing a reasonable amount of time to lapse and carefully reading and taking into account all disagreement present on this talk page and doing my best to properly address and accommodate them, I will go back and try again. You may not rightly revert an edit based on the existence of talk page disagreement per se, it depends on the content of that disagreement. So please reply substantively to the points I've made as I do you the same courtesy. Chrisrus (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see MelanieN’s 22:02 comment above. The issue here isn’t that you’re being bold in editing an article; it’s that you’re neglecting to determine consensus before editing a guideline. And to echo her: please see the notice at the top of this guideline: “Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.” In other words: Discuss, come to a consensus, then edit. And maybe let someone else make the edit, which isn’t unlikely if there is truly a consensus.
On a side note, please see WP:INDENT. —Frungi (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Exactly my points. Thank you Frungi. The only thing I can add is a change to Melanie's number of opposing editors. I think as it now stands, it is five editors opposing the proposed edits, not three. In addition I would suggest to Chrisrus, that instead of walls of text trying to rebut everyone, to please propose your edits before you add them anywhere, for detailed discussion of each proposed sentence. People have told you that before but you keep adding stuff to the article without anyone's prior agreement. That's not the way consensus works. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem there. It isn't bold, revert, discuss, repeat. It is bold, revert, discuss until there is consensus, then implement. Once a bold edit is reverted, nothing should change on the main page until there is a consensus on the talk page as to what the main page edit should say. Right now there is disagreement as to what this article should say regarding determining modern place names. So long as that remains the case, there is no reason to edit that section of this article. We're here, on the talk page, having a discussion about what that section should say. When somebody types something up here that the other interested editors all say, "yeah, ok, that works for me", THEN we edit it into the article.

You want the article to reflect that maps should have the first place in line when determining the modern name of a place and if they agree, then you stop looking. The other editors say that isn't acceptable. So simply tweaking the wording in the article isn't going to be enough to gain consensus. Let's all keep the discussion on the talk page, come to a wording we can all agree is acceptable, and then put it in the article. Dworjan (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have consensus for Dworjan's wording. (Chrisrus's support was half-hearted, but he did call it "progress". Everybody else who has commented has endorsed it.) The next question is, where in the article should it go? And what should we do about restoring "maps and atlases" to the numbered list of possible sources? IMO we could restore the version that was removed, but then I didn't really understand what people's problem with it was. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with Dworjan's wording, although personally would perhaps be a bit less sceptical about news media sources, since they tend – with due regard to possible bias, as noted – to be a good guide to up-to-date contemporary usage. To clarify though: is this intended to go into the Modern Name or the Widely Accepted Name section? I'd also point out that amid all the kerfuffle, and the expansion and subsequent reverting of text, we've actually lost the initial addition to Widely Accepted Name re atlases, such that it now says nothing about them at all. I know we're still trying to agree any precise supplementary wording but that start was not controversial. Plus I'd repeat that the guideline, with or without any additions, probably needs a thorough copyedit to avoid duplication both within and between subsections. N-HH talk/edits 10:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also uncomfortable with Dr. K's removal of the maps and atlases item from the checklist. Since you seem to feel the same, I have restored it while we discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see Vegaswikian's comments above when I actually added your proposed text that the "name is widely accepted": This is becoming more problematic. We provide one example of an acceptable map/atlas and yet we say if they agree. So any others have to agree with the preferred one? How many have to agree? Changes to the guideline should not be made until after a discussion has run for a while and suggested changes can be worked out and understood! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC). I happened to agree with his remarks and that is why I removed the whole atlas/map bit for further refinement. I am still uncomfortable with the way it is phrased and I agree with Vegaswikian that it needs further clarification and work and that it should not be added to the guideline page in its current form but I will not revert you addition. However I do believe that half-cooked or half-baked edits should not be added to the guideline if others have expressed reservations about their phrasing. I believe that only additions which have received wide consensus and have been worked upon and refined on the talkpage should appear in the main guideline page. The main guideline page should not be used as copy-editing field for works in-progress and to showcase as yet untried proposals the phrasing of which is still in doubt. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, N-HH added maps and atlases "as per apparent talk page consensus"; I too thought we had consensus that maps and atlases should be mentioned as a possible source. I then added what appeared to be a standard comment for the items in the list. What is the problem you have with it - is it the fact that just one example is given? I will re-remove it if you prefer, but let's promptly work out what it should say and put it back, since we did have consensus that maps and atlases were worthy of mention there. Or maybe we should replace the whole (misleadingly) numbered list format with a prose section like Dworjan's? --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. I think as Vegaswikian suggested we should rework the phrasing to make clear if the atlas in the example is our "approved" atlas and if other atlases are of lesser value. Also we should clarify how many atlases constitute a good sample for making a determination about the name and name a few others as examples. In addition you make a very good point about the way we present this information in numbered or prose form. I am ok with Dworjan's proposed addition in any format, although I agree with you that the numbered format may be misleading, at least to someone who doesn't read the qualifier in the text. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We did have consensus to include a clear and concise exposition of the suggestion that atlases were a suitable reference work to mention. The fact that this was then embellished and expanded in a way which did become controversial does not mean we have to remove it outright. Babies and bathwater and all that. Otherwise we will reach the position – which we seem to have done now – where we can't even make a small improvement but instead get bogged down in interminable debate as soon as someone wants to make an additional change or propose an alternative one, which becomes a pretext for never changing anything at all. This could literally go on for ever.

More broadly, having looked into the page in more detail, I can't help but think that that whole page could be cut back by about 80%. The guideline is repetitive, confused and over-long, both between and within its constituent sections. All it needs to do is set out the broad principles – ie WP follows whatever a place is called today, in most contemporary English-language sources, while noting alternative and historic names as necessary – and then perhaps set out a non-numeric bullet-pointed list of recommended sources and tools, ie atlases, databases/factbooks and encyclopedias (with specific suggested publications named) together with broader search tools such as Google News, Google Books and Lexis-Nexis searches (while noting their flaws and limitations). N-HH talk/edits 21:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ps: also, re Vegaswikian's comment and Dr K's endorsement of it. First, Vegaswikian was commenting on the embellished/expanded version of the original addition re atlases. Secondly, regardless, I don't understand the objection. Even with the additional sentence, it said: "Consult .. atlases such as the Times Atlas .. if they [ie atlases as a whole or by implication the majority of them] agree .." (my emphasis/parenthesis). In what way is that at all confusing or illogical, or does it suggest there is a "preferred" atlas, as is being suggested? N-HH talk/edits 21:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason I removed the section was to address Vegaswikian's concerns that the "embellished" version was unclear. I can't speak for Vegaswikian and perhaps he could clarify his thoughts on this, but in my view, one of the problems is that both the original and expanded versions mention consulting "atlases" in plural while providing only one example. But if they use plural they should provide more than one name. A similar phrase is found in the encyclopedia sentence of the guideline where three of them are recommended, so that could create confusion when compared to the atlas sentence, although, granted, the atlas sentence does not explicitly recommend the Times Atlas of the World. Second, for the embellished version of the atlas sentence, there is no mention as to what constitutes majority agreement. In the encyclopedia sentence three are mentioned as enough. Could the clarity of the atlas instruction also be improved in a similar manner so as to avoid arguments as to what constitutes majority-minority of atlases? However, I would have no objection to the simple version which just states that atlases should be consulted, if it is corrected by adding more names of atlas examples or if the one existing name is removed. Also I believe that before we introduce something to the guideline we should remove the bugs on the talkpage rather than doing copyediting after the fact. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I started commenting to quiet the edit war. My comments basically are in line with the explanation provide by Δρ.Κ.. The various proposals inserted into the guideline all have issues. I have not voiced an opinion on what the guideline should say. I have pointed out what I see as issues with the wording that was inserted. As I said using atlases, majority and only listing one is very confusing. How do we determine consensus of atlases? Is it 2 out of three? Five out of seven? Who chooses when we only mention one in the guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH on both counts: the page is overly complicated, and the process here for getting even minor changes made has become cumbersome. I'm going to start a new section below for suggestions, one at a time, to start to fix those two problems. I solicit your input and hope it will be simple, yes-or-no-or-how-about-this-instead. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. That's a great idea and I think the process you propose is fair and without pressure. I will respond to your bullet points below as soon as I get a chance. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There still seems to be a slight blind spot about the meaning and import of the phrase "such as" and about the fact that it is quite normal to specify one example when talking about a plural category. Confusion over that seems a little odd. Plus there's no reason people couldn't have simply added one or two others subsequently (which I was kind of assuming they would). Whatever, it's somewhat moot now. N-HH talk/edits 10:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your points. I was the one who originally added Melanie's clarification to the effect that "The name is widely accepted". But when Vegaswikian commented about the clarification creating yet more problems, I saw that the whole segment needed more work and I withdrew it, thinking it would be better to iron out the bugs on the talkpage rather than doing it live every time someone came with a better idea. In an environment where edit-warring was present, even good-faith modifications can be construed as edit-warring. I had that in the back of my mind and I didn't want to do any live editing or anyone else getting caught in that. Was it the perfect solution, consistent with all the nuances which could have been preserved? Perhaps not, but it was my judgment call at the time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that explains it. In that case, could we please return it to for the time being? When they finish the overhaul and are ready to put it in, they can take it out at that time. In the meantime, people will still be being advised to check atlases and such when they want to find the name of a place, in addition to all these other ways. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The most reasonable place to advise looking for place names first: atlases or encyclopedias?

(Note: this was posted as a whole new section at the bottom of the page; I am moving it here to keep the conversation about this point in one place.)

I will undo this edit soon, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=prev&oldid=568242669, on the grounds that it does not constitute guideline improvement. Let me explain:

The edit, as you can see if you click on it above, consisted of moving the atlases below the encyclopedias on WP:WIAN, so that the user is sent to the encyclopedias before being sent to the atlases and such. The edit summary reads "Per talk. No consensus for the interpretation as "less problematic."

Yet if we look at the talk page, we can see many points made clearly repeatedly why it's better to send the user to the atlases before the encyclopedias, and there has been no substantive counter-point to these.

There was the "What Would a Good Research Librarian Advise?" point about whether a good research librarian would send someone looking for a place name first to the encyclopedias or to the atlas stand and help him select the appropriate ones. She should advise the atlas stand first, for many good reasons, as stated previously repeatedly, with no clear counter-points to any of them. Sending such people to maps before encyclopedias is utterly rational, logical, sensible, and long-standing widespread practice for very good easily understandable reasons given repeatedly above and here again, not addressed well if at all above, let's see what happens below. Sending place name seekers to encyclopedias before atlases is bad reseach librarianship, and therefore this edit does not constitute guideline improvement.

The point has also been made that, having found the appropriate atlases and such, you don't have to go through and carefully check each usage in context for such things as modernness, primacy, and commonness, which is necessary with encyclopedias. That means atlases are less problematic in that way. This has been brought up repeatedly. Has anyone disagreed with that? Has anyone agreed that they are more problematic in this way? What kind of consensus are we waiting for? Simple absence of disagreement in any form, substantive or not? That is not a realistic expectation where WP:SEVEN-type issues and such are present. Where is the specific counter-point here on the talk page for that? Only empty disagreement is found, the existence of which may be ignored.

Also, the point has been made above that atlases and such are less problematic because they tend to have the names of pretty much every place over a certain size, and encyclopedias only have articles about certain notable places. The place he is looking for might not be mentioned in passing in other articles, but this will be harder to find in an encyclopedia than the handy place name indexes with coordinates in atlases and their modern electronic equivalents. This point also shows that encyclopedias more problematic. Where is the valid counter-point to on this talk page?

Now, I will allow a reasonable amount of time for some rational reason that, given these points, it is better for this guideline to advise place name seekers to check encyclopedias before atlases instead of the usual other way around, or some other rational reason my undoing this edit will not constitute guideline improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I’m not sure that anyone has supported your arguments (do correct me if I’m wrong), so I’d recommend against citing them in further arguments (especially in the passive voice) if you want to be taken seriously. Second, you’re complaining that the order of a list that is explicitly “not listed in any particular order” was changed? If you think the order does matter, you should probably propose the removal of that phrase before you worry about the order itself. (Note—carefully—that I did not say “you should probably remove that phrase”.) —Frungi (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here I see something of a substantive addressing of the points I was making. It does seem strange to worry about the positioning on a list that is said to be "in no particular order". However, it would be more helpful to the guideline user to have some idea of the logical places to check first, and if that's not available or if there is no clear answer found there, they the next logical place or places should come next, and so on. That would be a very helpful guideline for the people who are trying to find the names of places. I hope this is being dealt with in the overhaul, I must read up on their progress but I'm afraid that's it tonight. I do want to thank you, however, for this place here where you don't seem to ignore my points and actually address them and stick to the important matter at hand.

I agree with Frungi. Your method of asking rhetorical questions inside walls of text and then threatening your interlocutors that you will edit-war your proposed text into the article is not in any way constructive. Editors in the section above have already started agreeing with Dworjan's wording. You should wait for consensus to arrive at an acceptable version before you make any unilateral additions to this guideline based on your own walls of text and the consent of no one else. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You are saying, just because everybody disagrees with you, you are right and therefore you can decide wht the guideline says? Agathoclea (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: At the top of the guideline page there is this sentence:

This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,...

Do you assert that your edits constitute an English Wikipedia naming convention based on your own decision and nobody else's? Do you also assert that your edits are ...a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,... even though there is not an iota of consensus about your edits? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Whether anyone should or should not edit anything or should or should not respect a guideline, request, or rule depends on if it constitutes improvement or not. I have explained why this edit seemed to me to do so, above. It is for you at this point to address those or make counter-points or such. If you've got good points, I'll respond to those. If you want to talk about me or how I do things, there should be an appropriate forum for that. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Improvement in the community’s view. Which is why it says to discuss if in doubt. Clearly, for whatever reason (which it is up to you to make sure you understand), the community has in many ways disagreed with your idea of improvement. This is why we often discuss before making changes that seem like a good idea at the time. For instance: I thought it would be a great idea, even a stupidly obvious one, for the guideline to say we should follow grammatical rules regarding commas, even though it was fairly clear that some people disagreed. But rather than just add in a line or two about it without discussion (or even while people were actively disagreeing), I waited until there seemed to be a consensus that it would indeed constitute an improvement, and then added it. —Frungi (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't in doubt, and still am not, because while there has been disagreement, there has been no explanation for why it wouldn't, given the points I have made, constitute article improvement. Please tell me how sending then to the maps before the encyclopedias wouldn't improve it, addressing the specific points I have made. You'll be the first one to do so. It's not enough for there to be disagreement, the disagreement has to be substantive. Opposition to your comma edit with good reason and clear evidence should have kept you from making or re-making it. If it was just "No, ice cream has no bones!" or "No! You didn't support my edit" or "No, the comma is not in widespread use in English" or anything of the sort, then you ignore that. So tell me, how would placing the maps before the encyclopdias be a bad thing for the users, given the reasons given that it would be? Chrisrus (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you were right about the redirect RE:MODERNPLACENAME being too long. I've just made this redirect here WP:MPN. That was a good point. Chrisrus (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I’ll clarify: in doubt that it reflects consensus, that it is improvement in the community’s view. The majority of the reaction to the majority of your actions here has been disagreement and reversions, and no rational person could possibly construe that as consensus. That redirect, on the other hand, seems very common-sense and uncontroversial, and I actually considered doing it myself. —Frungi (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

True or false:

1. This guideline helps people find toponyms.
2. One good way is to check maps.
3. It should tell them one good way is to check maps. Chrisrus (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus, I and most others here have agreed that maps and atlases should be included in the guidelines in some way. We are trying to find the right way to say that, while (IMPORTANT!) not making any further changes in the guidelines until we reach consensus on what to say. If you would participate in the attempt at building consensus for a new wording, instead of simply repeating "maps, maps, maps" like a mantra, we could get the maps and atlases back into the guidelines - along with some actual guidance for readers. Since you have up to now ignored the attempts to build consensus, we have been talking around you, but we would be glad to have some constructive input from you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we found the issue. It is a toponym vs exonym issue. Personally I agree with toponyms but various policies and guidelines often favour exonyms. I like the approach deWiki has to that matter. They say even when there is a exonym but the term gets only used very rarly (some mathematical formula which counts the number the term gets used against a total figure) they prefer the toponym as title usually benefitting backwater places. Agathoclea (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, scratch that, try this:

True or false:

1. This guideline helps people find place names.
2. One good way is to check maps.
3. It should tell them one good way is to check maps. Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1. False... this guideline does not help people find place names ... those exist independent of this guideline. The purpose of this guideline is to help editors in choosing which place names to use in our articles.
2. Neither true nor false... of course maps should be consulted, but they are not the only way to choose place names (and in the case of controversial place names may not even be the best way).
3. Neither true nor false... the guideline should tell editors to check a wide variety of sources, including but not limited to maps.

If we do need to discuss the use of maps, I would suggest some variation on the "Including but not limited to" phrasing. No one objects to our editors consulting maps... but we do need to tell editors that they should not limit their sourcing purely to maps.

Something else to consider... I have seen a lot of discussion about using maps to determine the "official" names for places... Please remember that Wikipedia does not necessarily prefer "official" names. In fact, if there is a discrepancy between a rarely used "official" name and a more commonly used unofficial name, we actually favor the unofficial "commonly used" one. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please agree that this article helps users find and choose place names outside of itself.

Not "maps" per se: authoritative sources which publish the findings of experts in the field as to the primary, widely-used, modern (or historical period-specific) English-language names of geographic places. Experts recommend gazetteers, maps, atlases and on-line electronic databases, any other such places that users can consult to find out what experts on place naming say. No one outside of this talk page seems to think encyclopedias are the best tool for this job, but they might suffice in some cases.

Geographic place names are to be properly looked up, not figured out through original research. Counting search engine results and checking them out in context and tabulating and weighing them and on and on is original research, subject to biases such as WP:SEVEN issues and error due to a lack of professional training, experience and expertise, and other problems. It is the job of experts who publish them in gazetteers and such, not Wikipedians. The job of Wikipedians is to find out what experts say and pass that along to the readers. This guideline is to help them to look it up, not figure it out. Chrisrus (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Blueboar here. Your are still attempting to hard-code a prescription based on your preferred sources which would force a naming path prescribed by your preferred set of experts. This approach is one-sided and simplistic and it has been rejected multiple times. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Chrisrus's "maps first" approach has been thoroughly aired here, has not received consensus, and will not be in the guideline. Neither will "official names." Maps will be added to the guideline as one possible source. Meanwhile, I have been trying to draft a version of the guideline that WILL receive consensus. Could I ask both of you to look at the "fifth draft" of the guideline and comment on it? My main goal here is to achieve some kind of consensus on some actual wording, wrap up this discussion, and get back to building an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I just added my support for draft 5 as I had done with draft 4. Thank you Melanie for your great work. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How to improve, clean up and simplify the guideline

Please indicate how you would feel about these suggestions, hopefully with a simple "agree" or "disagree" or "how about this instead". And please add any other suggestions for cleanup, wording, etc., hopefully without a lot of discussion. Let's try to keep this area clean and easy to read so we can actually reach some conclusions here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to use bullet points instead of numbered items in the section "Widely accepted name".

Comment: I see Frungi has already implemented this one. --MelanieN (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed uncontroversial to me, given that they’re “not listed in any particular order”. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Suggestion-rather than break it down by each type of source, and 'rank' it that way, I propose we break it down by their suitability for finding the modern name without much analysis or interpretation. So encyclopedias, atlases, maps, etc all under the first bullet of 'sources that are almost always good' (or some better wording); newspapers and magazines under the second of 'sources that are generally good, with due caution to the possibility of bias in some'; and google book/scholar searches under the third of 'sources that would require more indepth analysis to be useful'. So break it down by reliability, include good examples of each type, and a sentence or two explaining why they are placed where they are. Dworjan (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This seems like a better solution than the current list. —Frungi (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I'd be happy with a split like this. As noted previously, I'm more positive about media, as it is often more up-to-date (and rather than sifting through the 1000s of individual publications and stories that might be thrown up in a search, it might be worth highlighting that access to the style guide or usage of the major wire services, eg Associated Press and Reuters, can give a quick simple pointer to the way the media is picking up on changing names). N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The style guide is also a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree I like this too, and if it was implemented it would make all of my suggestions below moot; they are just tweaks of the existing wording. So rather than implement the minor suggestions at this time, let's see what the actual alternate wording would look like. Dworjan, want to take a stab at it? --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Depends It doesn't matter per se how it is done, but a place name seeker should be directed to the less problematic authoritative sources first, and if those are not available or do not agree, they should be advised to check the more problematic ones. As long as this is achieved, it doesn't matter how.Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made a first attempt at a rewrite of the Widely accepted names section. See below. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to add, in second position in that list, "Consult appropriate, current, authoritative English-language maps and atlases or their modern digitized equivalents. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted."

Agree—maps should definitely be listed. No opinion on the positioning. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So a GPS is OK as a source (modern digitized equivalent)? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

See my above suggestion. We can't agree on which sources are the best (maps vs. encyclopedias) but I think we all agree that the two are equally reliable sources for modern names. Then they'd be positioned in the same place. Dworjan (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with this but presumably it is superseded by the above suggestion? N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy you seem to agree that Atlases and such should be included. Please note that while we wait for this process, they are have been deleted, and replaced repeatedly, leaving them now absent. Maps should come first because they are less problematic than encyclopedias in such ways as including all places over a certain size, lacking the need for checking usage in context, and handy indexing. Sending place name seekers to maps before encyclopedias and such is widespread common practice and good research librarianship. No one has yet explained why encyclopedias should come first and atlases second. Why should it be encyclopedias first and then maps second instead of the other way around? Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: what would you think about removing ALL of the evaluations of those items: "it is the widely accepted English name", "it is widely accepted," "it is presumably widely accepted," "it is probably widely accepted."

No strong feelings, but I don’t disagree. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree-I think rather than say anything that says "and this is when you have your answer", we just present the sources and state why they're good, or what might make using them a little more problematic. Dworjan (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If we keep the list roughly as it is, these can surely definitely all go as redundant and repetitive. N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree Per the above comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree If you can achieve the purpose of these phrases elsehow, then I'd agree. The point of the guideline is to help people find the proper place name efficiently and effectively in cases where there is some disagreement about that. They want a definitive answer, so we should help them to know when they have found it. We can set them all at unanimity if that's reasonable, or leave it intentionally vague if we want to such as "a clear preference for one name is found" or "the great majority" or some such. The important thing is to not have them keep looking if they've already got the answer. This is very important because otherwise people with WP:SEVEN-type issues or other such issues will continue to disagree no matter what, so we need a path to a definitive answer or else they'll continue to raise the bar indefinitely. This is exactly the kind of help this guideline is looked to for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 August 2013‎

Please see my reply below. —Frungi (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to remove the guideline "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted" as overly prescriptive.

Strongly agree. —Frungi (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This is far to prescriptive and numerically precise, while actually being impossible to evaluate in reality. N-HH talk/edits 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Makes sense. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree I have no idea how they are going to get that number; it may be impossible. Give them a more reasonable standard. Surely we have to give them some reasonable idea when this route to modern place name has arrived at an answer. Just give them some reasonable point to stop looking, they have their answer. "A clear preference is evident" or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

---

As I said, I have no strong feelings either way toward the suggestion to remove the stating of the obvious (“If all the sources use a name, the name everyone uses is proooobably widely accepted”). I just want to try and explain it a bit: I think the idea behind removing it is to reduce redundancy—it says, “Here’s a list of ways to find the widely accepted name,” and then several (but not all?) listed ways say, “This is a way to find the widely accepted name.” We can probably trust editors to be smart enough to work that much out for themselves. Anyway, this is likely moot since this list seems to be on the way to being replaced, but I just wanted to try and clear that up. —Frungi (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing pieces

Now, the WP:MODERNPLACENAME user doesn't get any help whatsoever finding the modern place name seeker. Two days ago, there was a redirect with a caveat to several good paths to modern place name determination at the end. This can no way be a constructive edit. Now it just tells the reader to use them and why, but not how find them. How does this improve anything. The guideine user is poorly served by this destructive edit. What service is there to the modern place name seeker in the removal of the redirect and caveat from WP:MODERNPLACENAMEto WP:WIAN? Please explain how the reader is served by this action or undo it.

And also, WP:WIAN doesn't mention maps at all anymore. What's up with that? How is it reasonable for the reader to be advised to seek place names in encyclopedias (and even other Wikipedians?!?!!!) but not maps? What kind of help is that for a place name seeker? This is poor research librarianship indeed. What self-respecting research librarian doesn't tell a place name seeker to check a map? What agenda other than service to the guideline user could motivate such an action? Please get to the bottom of this and return this "check a map" advice to its proper place right away and put and end to such destructive editing. Chrisrus (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review the Talk page before asking questions that may already have an answer. Improvements to WP:WIAN (including the inclusion of maps and atlases) are being discussed at #How to improve, clean up and simplify the guideline.
As for MODERNPLACENAME, I honestly have no idea what you mean by your first sentence, and I’m afraid I have no idea what destructive edit you’re referring to; the only recent changes to that section have been your own additions and the rather speedy reversions of them. If you mean your own additions, please be clear about that rather than using the passive voice, as that’s confusing and may be perceived as misleading. Anyway, the final paragraph of that section still has the recommended sources from User:N-HH’s edit last week, telling the reader how to find them. —Frungi (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear improvements are in the works. Let's hope to see them soon. There's no reason to delete important stuff users need while we're waiting.

Suppose today someone clicked on WP:MODERNPLACENAME seeking advice in finding them, he wouldn't know to look to WIAN, he wouldn't get any help finding them at all, even though there it is just a few sections above. Let it stay while we wait saying "see WIAN, but hold for modernness" as it was. How does it constitute guideline improvement, service to the user, to remove that while we wait?

Suppose today someone looked to WIAN for advice on seeking a place name. He'd be told to check encyclopedias and sent to lexis/nexis, but he wouldn't even be advised to check a map? What poor research librarianship. Why does that have to be removed while we wait? No self respecting guideline on how to find the names of places neglects to mention maps atlases.

Don't care if N-HH or I or you or who made what. That doesn't matter. What matters is the guideline user. The only concern, only measure of edits, is whether they improve or harm the article in terms of service to the reader. The MPN seeker can land there directly using the WP:MODERNPLACENAME link and not find a way to the proper place on WP:WIAN. And the WP:WIAN user is told to look for a name of place in all kinds of places, but not to check an atlas? Think about that, no-self respecting place name finding guideline should be without atlas advice. It's a shame. This is not about you or me, this is about them, the users, and the guideline itself, how good it is. How can a place name finding guideline with no mentions of atlases and maps be as good as one that does? Chrisrus (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, what deletion are you referring to? Can you provide a diff? —Frungi (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the “maps” item from WIAN was discussed at #Latest move. Please see there for explanations and discussion; in short, it was removed because it needed further improvement pending discussion, and guidelines should not have sentences or paragraphs that are in a state of flux. And just to reiterate, please provide a diff showing your concerns over MODERNPLACENAME (am I the only one who finds that shortcut a bit too long?). —Frungi (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Attempt at a rewrite

We've been trying to improve the section "Widely accepted name". We seem to have consensus that 1) current maps and atlases should be included and 2) the section as currently written is awkward and bloated. So here is a first draft of an attempt to replace the current Widely Accepted Name section with a reorganized and simplified version, following the suggestion made by Dworjan. More examples of acceptable sources are needed; please add them to the draft. I didn't include all of the detail currently in the section; please compare and see what else should be kept. For major changes, let's discuss below before changing the draft, but this is by no means intended as holy writ and I expect there will be substantial rewriting before we reach consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name: first draft

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, the source should be published after 1993, to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other, later limiting dates may be appropriate for some parts of the world.

• Sources that are almost always reliable: respected, authoritative, current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta), atlases, gazetteers such as those listed at Gazeteer#List of gazeteers, and maps, whether printed or electronic.

• Sources that are generally reliable, with due caution to the possibility of bias in some: major authoritative English-language news sources, either individually or via Lexis-Nexis, taking care to use only current references and to avoid sources that might have a political or nationalistic bias.

• Other sources that are generally reliable, with due caution to the fact that they may be dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English: standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries).

• Sources that require individual analysis to be useful: books and articles such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period.

• Search engines that can provide reliable results, if parameters are properly set, and with due caution to the fact that some references may be out of date, not relevant to the period or location in question, or written by a non-native English speaker: Google Books and Google Scholar.

• Search engines that must be considered with extreme caution, if at all: raw counts from Google and Google News.

Discussion:

Why lump together the encyclopedias and the maps? There are some important differences between them. Maps are less problematic in several important ways, including the fact that they do not require much inspection for usage in context for such things and modernity and primacy, they include pretty much every place over a certain size, the ability to locate the place and name quickly by name index and/or coordinates, and the fact that it has long been widespread common and professional practice to recommend using maps to find the name of places, not encyclopedias. Is there some reason in favor of lumping encyclopedias and maps together in this way? Chrisrus (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cartographic onomatology methods and criteria are not necessarily the same as those of encyclopedias or even other media. They may be indicators of the usage of a form of a name but by no means in and of themselves establish the widely accepted common name in the English language. The fact that you keep calling the maps "less problematic" bears no weight in this discussion. We are not looking here to find versions of placenames easily but to find the most widely used modern name in the English language. It may be easy to find a name of a place in a map but it only provides the name version which is used in cartography. It does not in any way guarantee that the cartographic name is the most common name or that cartographic onomatology is a superior indicator of the common name and for sure it does not supersede or replace other common name indicators. The fact that some obscure places can only be found in maps and not other sources is a special case which only applies to obscure places and cannot be generalised to deduce any overall supremacy of maps as onomatological sources. That is a logical fallacy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus, please accept the fact that your point has been made and you have achieved most of your goal. There is consensus to mention maps and atlases, and they will be added to the guideline. There is consensus that they are a reliable source; this draft lists them among the best sources. There is NOT consensus that they are more reliable than encyclopedias, nor is there likely to be. If you have specific suggestions for how to tweak this draft, please share them. We need more examples of atlases and map sources that are suitable as sources (is National Geographic one?); please suggest some or add them to the draft. If all you can do is keep insisting that maps and atlases should be valued above all else, please do it in some other section. This section is for discussing and improving the draft. And everybody else: I would prefer this section to be results-oriented and focused on finding wording we can all agree on - preferably not just another place for philosophical discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dr. K, if they are not the same, why lump them together? My point is that they are not the same, so therefore shouldn't be lumped together, and your point is that they are different, so how is that any argument that they be lumped together? You have not given any reason why they should be lumped together. If they are not the same as you maintain, then please agree that we should list them separately. Chrisrus (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I agree, as long as no further arguments are made about the supremacy of cartographic over encyclopedic onomatology. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They are “lumped together” because they are each “almost always reliable”, and this list is sorted by the level of reliability. Not sure why this needs to be pointed out. —Frungi (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I hadn't read the draft in detail. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Would current editions of travel guides like Fodor's be acceptable sources? And which class would they be in, the same as maps? —Frungi (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed "travel guides" and left it out because I wasn't sure how "authoritative" they were. There are an awful lot of them, and (speaking as someone who travels a lot) they are riddled with errors, even Fodor's. What do you think? And if added, would they be in the same class as encyclopedias and atlases, or in one of the less authoritative groups? --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I’ll have to take your word on that, and it sounds like they’d belong in the same category as books in general. Speaking of which, I propose changing the wording to something like: books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books (addition bolded). Otherwise it’s sort of excluding physical books and such. —Frungi (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea; I've changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned by the use of "extreme" caution regarding Google Books and Google Scholar results, and lumping them together with raw Google searches. While raw Google searches contain a lot of garbage and should indeed be treated with extreme caution (if at all, in fact), in my experience I have found Books and Scholar searches to be generally good predictors of the widely accepted name. Of course, the key here is that such searches be properly conducted, with the right parameters. So what I propose is to create and additional bullet for Google Books and Google Scholar results ("Searches that are generally reliable, with due caution to the fact that they may contain results that are dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native English speaker include properly conducted Google Books and Google Scholar searches."), and use "extreme caution" only for raw Google searches and Google News results. Athenean (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding a version of that, but I don't know how you could set parameters to exclude non-English speakers! I find these searches shaky at best, but maybe I'm just not good enough at setting search parameters. Feel free to rewrite the item I added; you clearly have a lot more experience with this type of search than I do. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. My only suggestion is a slight expansion to include the reasons why things are in the lower categories. So expanding what you have posted I would propose:

Widely Accepted Name - second draft

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed.

• The best sources are disinterested, authoritative reference works, such as: current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases (examples: Times Atlas of the World); and maps (examples: ), whether printed or electronic.

• English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias (for nationalistic, religious or political reasons) in some, but major, global sources are generally reliable, such as: major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times or The Washington Post); wire services (examples: Reuters or Associated Press); or databases such as Lexis-Nexis.

• Other sources that are generally reliable, with due caution to the fact that they may be dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English include: standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries).

• Sources that require individual analysis to be useful: books and articles such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. Even books and scholarly articles written after watershed events may use historical place names in the context of the work.

• Sources that must be approached with extreme caution: raw counts from search engines including Google, Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books. Even sudden events that result in widely recognized name changes will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they will still include all references to the place before the event; and relatively obscure places that have a major impact on history during a particular time period will continue to show disproportionately large search returns for the location's name during that period.

Dworjan (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks, that's a good improvement. You might see if you can adapt your final bullet point into two, to distinguish between properly conducted Google Scholar and Google Books searches on the one hand, and raw counts from Google and Google News on the other hand, as suggested by Athenean. I took a stab at it in the first draft; maybe you can find a way to integrate that distinction into your draft. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the wording "The best sources...", this is exactly the problem of giving precedence to atlases and maps that has been plaguing this discussion all along. I also think far too many caveats have been added with regards to books and other scholarly works. All publications that meets WP:RS, whether atlases, news organizations, books, or scholarly papers should have equal weight. This latest version is even more skewed in favor of atlases and maps. I am also unhappy that my suggestion was totally ignored. Properly conducted Google Books and Google Scholar searches are a good way of ascertaining the usage level of a name. They are used ubiquitously in naming discussions throughout wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with a way to tweak it to reflect that google books/scholar searches can be good. They may all be reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they are all equally useful for ascertaining a place name. They're not placed in order of reliability but in order of simplicity of use. Reference works are a matter of opening and finding what you're looking for. News sources require more effort to avoid biases and separate out older works. Books and papers require analysis of the work to determine when it was written and in what context the name was used. And broad searches like Google Books and Google Scholar require a lot more analysis to separate the chaff from the wheat. It would take a lot more work to come up with good and useful results from such a search than from checking the encyclopedias or atlases. Its not less reliable, its just more time- and effort-intensive. They are useful for naming discussions throughout wikipedia, but here we need to keep in mind that there are further constraints on the search (namely time period and context of the name) than are normally found on the typical naming discussion. Most other naming discussions don't depend so heavily on the context of the use of the name. Dworjan (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They may all be reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they are all equally useful for ascertaining a place name. They're not placed in order of reliability but in order of simplicity of use.. I disagree. "Simplicity of use" =/= "useful for ascertaining a place name". All sources are "useful for ascertaining a place name" in a naming discussion. A naming discussion takes all reliable sources into consideration in naming a place and then it decides on the most common occurrence of the name. The ease of finding a name within a given source bears no relation to its usefulness or the validity of the name version contained within it.

Most other naming discussions don't depend so heavily on the context of the use of the name. Most discussions depend on time context to varying degrees. Micromanaging the guideline so that we can target one or two specific examples that we may think are more period-intensive than others and in the process deprecating whole groups of reliable sources based on arbitrary criteria such as "ease of use" will create many more problems down the line than it tries to solve. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing "best sources" with "almost always reliable" - avoiding the value judgment. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Thank you Melanie. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This was written and intended to highlight different reliable sources useful in determining a modern place name, and explain why some cannot simply be taken at face value. I'll happily change "best" to "almost always reliable," but I thought you had just finished saying that all the sources are reliable... I don't know why you think I'm targeting one or two specific examples, because I'm not. I was in fact doing the opposite. I was trying to think of what problems could come from each type of source and point those out so future editors could avoid them. Google Book searches may be considered reliable, but that does not make the result of a Google Book search useful for a naming discussion. That's the point of what I wrote. "Here are a set of reliable sources for determining modern place names, and here's what you need to do to avoid misusing them in your efforts to determine a modern place's name". If you want to come up with a way to rewrite things that point out the different sources and how to properly use them in determining a modern place name, then go for it. No where in there does it say not to consult all the sources or to stop after one or two steps.

Simplicity of use has got to be a component of determining whether something is useful. A set of parts to build a robot arm might be "useful" for changing a tire, but would you put it in the same sentence as a tire iron? And while most naming discussions may depend on time context, this is one of the few situations where names may change literally overnight, and still have the previous name used for some time afterwards. Dworjan (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

but I thought you had just finished saying that all the sources are reliable... No, I didn't say that. I wrote about "groups of reliable sources", like GBooks for example or GScholar. I realise that some of them, although reliable, may refer to names in a historical context and therefore have to be rejected. That's not a problem. The problem is if we declare the whole group "inconvenient", "not simple to search" etc. All source groups should be equally considered in a WIAN discussion without applying convenience as a criterion to somehow deprecate some of them. Also comparing groups of sources to tools doesn't work for me because I think that all reliable sources should be considered and if some sources need analysis, that fact alone should not disqualify them from full consideration. Having said that I have no inclination to make another proposal. I think that most of your guidelines dealing with the interpretation of GBooks searches are ok. I also think that this process will eventually lead to an improved guideline through the input of the editors here and I think that the draft can be improved through consensus without needing a rewrite, at least not by me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Geez I wish I could convince you all not to allow anything that has to be waded through by hand unless absolutely necessary for some clear rational reason. Have you seen the results of such allowances in practice? It's so tedious and prone to so many POV issues to check those things in context. I understand it sounds good to leave things open to any means to the answer, but in practice it's condemning people to pointless, needless search-result interpretation fests. You are asking objective Wikipedians who really don't care about the name of some obscure place to do as much to do as much work as a person with WP:SEVEN-type issues that make them highly motivated and biased and it's just never going to happen. Leave that job to the professionals, that's what they are paid for. Let them publish their conclusions what the most widely used modern or period specific place name is, and we just report it. It's so much more to what Wikipedia is all about that way then telling us to do that research in from the bottom-up ourselves.

@Melanie, I did as you asked and tried to find a list of WP:RS encyclopedias/atlases, but haven't been able to find one, yet. The person at our Humanities help desk didn't seem to know of one, and dis-recommended encyclopedias. She said the thing we're looking for is called a gazetteer. It's a reference table of place names published or updated frequently for exactly this purpose and used by professional journalists and geographers and cartographers and so on. I'll keep looking a bit tonight but I think you are right about National Geographic Society being another good example to add to the Times Atlas of the World. That's one for UK and one for the USA so those are the main varieties of English. If the list gets much longer it should maybe housed elsewhere and we could link them to it so as not to bloat this guideline section. Perhaps at the bottom of the page? I'm going to check for help from an appropriate project in getting a list of authoritative widely-accepted professionally recommended for this purpose gazetteer publications and such. Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: Huh? After all this drumbeating for atlases and maps, and all your insistence that maps and atlases absolutely must be the first or only thing we consult - you can't actually tell us what atlases and maps you have in mind? Then what the heck have you been talking about? --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

About looking up what experts have decided is the modern or period-specific, widely-used English-language name of a place in the proper publication, not having users try to make that determination themselves, which is unprofessional and subject to bias. Chrisrus (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet, despite your month-long advocacy of this position, you can't tell us what "proper publication" you are talking about? While you try to figure out what you are actually proposing, I am going to add the Wikipedia list of gazetteers to draft #1 - and I would encourage Dworjan to consider adding it to draft #2. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. and I deleted the placeholders for "examples" since nobody has come up with any. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that took about ten seconds: why don't we just add to the first bulleted item, "or up-to-date gazetteers such as those listed at Gazeteer#List of gazeteers?" I am perfectly willing to add that to my version (draft #1) immediately. For most purposes I now prefer draft #2, but I would still like to see some mention of Athenean's distinction between the different types of search. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, about linking there, that's a good idea which could be developed further. Some of those links might not be appropriate. For example, there appears to have been some linkrot on the list. About the idea that we should ask users to figure out themselves which name is the most widely used or modern via original research, that is quite un-Wikipedian, subject to bias, and unprofessional. Leave that up to the experts. Chrisrus (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

We do leave it to the experts, when possible:

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, …

The rest of the section is about what to do when the alternative would be to do nothing until a neutral and reliable source makes such a statement. —Frungi (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name - third draft

Chrisrus (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"To settle disagreement among Wikipedians as to which name is most modern or widely used in English, consult the proper publications or databases in which experts publish and update this information. The best sources are disinterested, authoritative reference works, such as: current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases (examples: Times Atlas of the World); and maps (examples: ), whether printed or electronic."

Horribly vague. The current text and both proposed drafts all include specific and general examples of what sources to consult. —Frungi (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it needs to point the user to those sources. We can some of those above, and we can ask www.arl.org Association of Research Libraries. But so far so good? No having the readers try to figure out for themselves what the proper name is as suggested in the current text and the drafts above. We take our answers from experts, only, not try to figure out for ourselves which is more common and modern and primary using problematic Lexis Nexis searches of all media and Google Scholar searches and so on, trying to arrive at the answers ourselves through original research conducted by Wikipedians. We are not professionals or experts, and the process is too subject to error and bias. Chrisrus (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply immediately above this subsection header. —Frungi (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How about now? Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're not going to describe your changes to a proposal, please use <ins> and <del> markup to make your changes apparent. —Frungi (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. If you're not following this thread real time, I copied and pasted the second sentence from the second draft and said "how about now"?. Earlier responses in this thread had been based on the first sentence, only.

The point here is, even though work remains to further improve this draft, unlike the other drafts at least it doesn't send the user off to do original research, it leaves that task the experts, and this draft as written does provide paths to the answer the user seeks. Chrisrus (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also silly to refer to "disagreement among Wikipedians" in guidance. Just state the guidelines. But I've forgotten how we got here or why we think a change might be needed anyway. And Chrisrus, it has never been WP policy to "take our answers from experts, only". We try to be neutral, which is hard if one is going to get into arguments about who is an expert. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I have taken it into account, below, in a new version, below these replies.

When there is disagreement about place names, people look to these guidelines. They aren't much needed otherwise. It happens regularly mostly because of WP:SEVEN issues, which are unlikely to ever go away, and should be anticipated. Having wikipedians determine the most widely used name on our own from raw data seemed like a reasonable idea, but turned out to be problematic, and isn't necessary if we just leave that up to the experts.

On Wikipedia, as you know, articles are supposed to be based on material that has been published by sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anything controversial or challenged should be cited to reliable sources, not previously unpublished data or synthesis of data done by Wikipedians. While you or you may actually be the experts on this or that in your real lives, here you are a user name, maybe your teenage son logging on while you are out shopping or some such, so we can't cite the say-so of Wikipedians. Chrisrus (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"To determine the primary, most modern, or widely used in English place names, consult the proper publications or databases in which experts publish and update this information. The best sources are disinterested, authoritative reference works, such as: current, English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases (examples: Times Atlas of the World); and maps (examples: ), whether printed or electronic."

Widely Accepted Name - fourth draft

--MelanieN (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed.

• Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include major English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta); atlases; gazetteers such as those listed at Gazetteer#List of gazetteers; and maps, whether printed or electronic.

• English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. However, major global sources are generally reliable, such as: major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times or The Washington Post); wire services (examples: Reuters or Associated Press); or databases such as Lexis-Nexis.

• Also generally reliable are standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries). However, due caution is needed in case they are dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English.

• Sources that require individual analysis to be useful include books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. Even if a book or scholarly article was written after watershed events that resulted in a name change, it may use historical place names in the context of the work.

• The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results, if parameters are properly set. But even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change. Also, relatively obscure places that have a major impact on history during a particular time period will continue to show disproportionately large search returns for the location's name during that period.

• Raw counts from Google and Google News must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.

Discussion

Although the broad warning re raw search numbers at the last point is valid, I wouldn't equate News searches with full Google. The former have the advantage of being time limited in default mode (so are up to date) while the latter of course includes hundreds of blogs and personal and activist websites. Yes Google News numbers and results need analysis, and any initial indications can and will often be rebutted, but they are a good starting point, and quick and easy at that. Also, if we're going to recommend certain news sources at point 2, and suggest running Lexis-Nexis searches, presumably to look at the numbers, it seems a bit contradictory to later say, more or less, "but not a Google News search". Apologies for not pointing this out re earlier drafts, but I rather dropped out here. N-HH talk/edits 09:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about Lexis-Nexis too. Would you list it and Google News in the next-to-last category, then, and give the "extreme caution" warning only to Google hits? Also, I should add "see Search engine issues below" since there is quite an extensive section already in the guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at it again, I think the suggested newspapers should include the Times of London and possibly other non-US sources of similar reputation. --MelanieN (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure really of the best way to deal with this, but I'd even rank News higher than Books for this sort of thing, given that the latter includes, for example, children's books and doesn't auto-exclude older publications (and even with recently published books, they are often going to be about history, whereas newspapers and other media are more usually covering the modern context). There's also a case for including it at the end of the current media section, eg "Google News search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole but, as with all raw Google numbers, should be used with caution". Also, on another point, should we also not name/recommend individual atlases? My original suggestion was the Times Atlas; I'm not familiar with other authoritative ones. N-HH talk/edits 10:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ps: when it comes to search tools rather than specific individual sources, this is quite a useful tool for comparing the use of terms in Google Books. N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. I could certainly add "Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw Google numbers, they should be used with caution" to the media section if others agree. And I should mention ngrams as a searching tool. (Question: can you set the Google News search parameters to be for items in English only?)

About the specific example of the Times Atlas, I originally included it, but someone said there should be more examples, and no one was able to come up with any others, so I eliminated the mention of examples. I would be glad to put it back, alone or with others, if that is the consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose In cases of disagreement, please do not advise place name seekers to conduct original research. Instead, have them consult the proper peer-reviewed reference materials in which experts publish and update their findings as to the primary, modern, wide-used names of places. Chrisrus (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

When you are able to tell people what "proper peer-reviewed reference materials" you are talking about, we can add them to the guideline. In the meantime, and without such specification, this advice is (frankly) worthless, and I think we should ignore it until you come up with some specifics. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Should this guideline have them look it up or figure it out? Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Support I feel comfortable with the wording and the overall calm spirit of the draft guideline. I have not looked into it in minute detail but imo it represents a real improvement. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name - fifth and hopefully final draft

I have incorporated the recent discussion as well as the excellent sources found by Chrisrus. --MelanieN (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the last call for input before I put this material into the Widely Accepted Name section in place of the current bullet points there. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed.

• Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include:
  • major English-language encyclopedias (examples: Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta);
  • widely used atlases (examples: The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, the Oxford Atlas of the World);
  • gazetteers (examples: Cambridge World Gazetteer, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America);
  • databases such as the Geographic Names Information System;
  • maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic.
  • Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names, such as the United States Board on Geographic Names (see BGN below), the Geographical Names Board of Canada, etc.
  • For modern country names, The World Factbook [3] maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency is current and continuously updated.
  • For spelling of place names, a good reference is Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.

• English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. However, major global sources are generally reliable, such as major authoritative English-language newspapers (examples: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London) or wire services (examples: Reuters, Associated Press). Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw search numbers, they should be used with caution.

• Also generally reliable are standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question (examples: Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies; Library of Congress Subject Headings; and Oxford dictionaries). However, due caution is needed in case they are dated, not relevant to the period in question, or written by a non-native speaker of English.

• Some sources require individual analysis to be useful; these include books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. Even if a book or scholarly article was written after watershed events that resulted in a name change, it may use historical place names in the context of the work.

• The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results, if parameters are properly set. In particular, a Google Ngram Viewer search of Google Books can provide valuable insights. But even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change. Also, relatively obscure places that have a major impact on history during a particular time period will continue to show disproportionately large search returns for the location's name during that period.

• Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.

• See also Search engine issues below.

Fifth and hopefully final draft - discussion

• Support For the same reasons that I supported Draft 4 just above. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I support all improvements in directing the users to sources which publish the findings of experts as to the primary modern or period-specific widely-used place names, I oppose those sections in which the user is advised to carry out original research to determine such names themselves by conducting search-engine surveys of usage, examining each usage in context for primacy, modernity or period-specificity, and commonness, weighing each, and tabulating the results, on the grounds that this is WP:OR, highly problematic, unprofessional, unnecessary, and subject to manipulation at the hands of those Wikipedians with WP:SEVEN or WP:BACKUP issues or other mindsets that disable them from accepting that the name of a place has changed or is not what they had thought, allowing them to reject the findings of experts in the field of place naming and substitute their own opinions and research. Geographical data are things we Wikipedians look up in the proper sources and report without synthesis, not things we determine ourselves from raw data. Chrisrus (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think placing restrictions on all editors because of the stubborn and insistent mindsets of some otherwise well-intentioned editors is simply wrong, for one thing because it likely doesn’t matter what our rules say if they’ve already made up their minds. If you think someone is so far gone that a joke like WP:SEVEN genuinely applies to him, that’s best dealt with on an individual basis, isn’t it? I really don’t think that’s something to “fix” in policy. —Frungi (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  Any editor, regardless of motivation, wanting to know the common modern English name of a place in good faith will be helped by guiding them to good places to find them. None will be hurt by our failure to advise them to less good places or problematic sources. None should be directed to mediocre or poor places to find them, doing so could only hinder those users from determining the name.

  This is not to restrict them from using other methods. Some time ago, someone suggested that we dis-recommend specifically Google Maps for some reason, I forget why. Now, if we did that, it would be restricting them from a source. Failing to mention Google Maps among our recommended sources wouldn't restrict them from using it, however. No one suggests that we advise them to find a place name by going to a museum, but us not doing that does not restrict them from doing so. It's the difference between not recommending and dis-recommending.

  There are regular disagreements on Wikipedia because of WP:SEVEN issues about place names. Pretty much whenever that happens, someone shows them WP:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). It's one of the basic functions of this guideline, and it's time this guideline be written with this important probable user in mind. Imagine you are asked to weigh in on one such case, what you want is a guideline that helps them look up the name in the proper place, not one that starts everyone on original research projects. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Chrisrus, this guideline starts out by emphasizing the exact kind of expert sources you are recommending. Indeed, many of them are sources you yourself suggested after asking experts. Isn't that what you wanted? Isn't this a big improvement in the guideline, which you yourself helped to bring about?

  After that, it lists other possible sources, with indications of what they are good for as well as caveats about them. If we leave out all those other sources, as I think you are suggesting, we also leave the caveats - which would be a very bad idea. If we don't warn against raw Google searches, plenty of people will offer them as evidence. If we don't point out the limitations of books, people will offer very unsuitable books as evidence. It is important to list all the various kinds of sources, with appropriate guidance for their use. If we list only the sources you think are the best, and omit any mention of other sources (which I think is what you are arguing for - you never make it clear what it is you actually want), we not only do a disservice to our readers but we make it MORE likely that people will use inferior sources - not having been warned of their limitations.

  At this point I intend to ignore your "oppose" !vote since it is an outlier, as well as not providing any alternative to the suggested draft. As you like to say, the mere existence of opposition should not be a factor, that is to be expected and allowed for. and The mere existence of disagreement is not enough. … So unless the disagreement is not mere disagreement but rather based in good evidence and valid reasoning, it should be ignored. and Only empty disagreement is found, the existence of which may be ignored. I would still welcome constructive suggestions and input from others. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, recent additions giving users more specific advice are progress and should continue. Thank you.

  The way the second part is written, it's not clear we are dis-recommending we go those routes. It still sounds like we expect them to do this and are trying to help them conduct this research on their own. They should be advised to look this information up, not figure it out on their own. If we want to specifically dis-recommend it, that's fine, but it's not clear that is what the guideline does. By not including the second part, it means that kind of research would be going outside of guidelines which they might have to do I suppose if the normal places this info is housed do not greatly agree on a name, but people are going to look at that and think we're telling them that this original research route, although difficult and problematic, is a way we think they might want to go. If rewritten so that the reader would get the general gist "this is something we are too look up, not figure out", I would support.

  This is the substance of my opposition. I offer the alternative below, but first some other problems which I notice but don't warrant opposition from me:

  The Canadian English sources should be added, and we should reach out to other Englishes as to the highest authorities specifically on Geographic naming they might have. Australian, New Zealand, and South African English come to mind. Other threads seemed to be about whether Indian English should be treated differently or not. Others that come to mind are Irish English and smaller Island Englishes. This could wait, however, I won't oppose if this is not yet complete.

  The idea to use encyclopedias to look up geographic info may have seemed reasonable, but it actually doesn't turn out to be the recommended tool for the job. There are jobs for dictionaries, encyclopedias, atlases, and the periodic table of elements. This is not a job for which encyclopedias are normally recommended by experts reference librarians. The others in the first part are. Problems include them being more like the news articles in that they have to be checked by hand for primacy, commonality, and modernity of usage in context; the fact that encyclopedias don't list all places over a certain size; and the type of indexing they use. If people want the definition of a word, we should point them to the appropriate dictionary, not an encyclopedia. If they want the name of a place, there are specific tools for that. It's just not good reference librarianship to recommend encyclopedias to determine place names that will work for some major places but we don't know what places the user is looking for.Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This version is deliberately "not clear we are dis-recommending we go those routes", because we are not. This version does not "dis-recommend" the other sources, nor does it "expect" people to use them. The alternative sources are provided for information, with appropriate guidance as to their usefulness, and no prohibition against their appropriate use. I see you have proposed a "sixth version" that omits the secondary sources. Thank you for doing this. Laying your idea out clearly as a proposal will give us a chance to once and for all reach consensus for or against the idea. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Thoughtful and well-written guidelines. Athenean (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with one caveat: IDONTLIKEIT that it seems a bit lengthy. If it could be tightened up a bit with the same meaning, great; if not, I still support this draft. —Frungi (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I admit it is kind of lengthy, but that seems to be the result of the discussion/collaborative process here. (If it reads like something created by a committee, that's pretty much what it is.) I don't offhand see any way to trim it without discarding parts of what looks like a fairly strong consensus here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Agathoclea (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Y I have put this version into the guideline per what appears to be clear consensus here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name - sixth draft

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names.

• Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include:
  • widely used atlases (examples: The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, the Oxford Atlas of the World);
  • gazetteers (examples: Cambridge World Gazetteer, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America);
  • databases such as the Geographic Names Information System;
  • maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic.
  • Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names, such as the United States Board on Geographic Names (see BGN below), the Geographical Names Board of Canada, etc.
  • For modern country names, The World Factbook [4] maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency is current and continuously updated.
  • For spelling of place names, a good reference is Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 August 2013

Sixth draft discussion

• Oppose as non-starter. This amputated guideline is just another transparent and unsubtle POV attempt at hardcoding map supremacy. Any set of guidelines which omits news sources, one of the primary engines of English onomatology, is DOA. Same goes for encyclopedias, standard histories, scientific studies, Google Books and other Google-related searches. Actually I don't think this can be called a draft proposal. It actually looks more like a graveyard by burying so many reliable sources and an attempt at suppressing valid information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What has been "amputated" would constitute original research. Geographic place names are things one looks up, not figures out. Chrisrus (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is according to your own original research. When you publish a paper that the only valid sources for onomatology are only those existing in cartography and no other and it gets accepted in a peer-reviewed journal then you can attempt this amputation at that time and see if it gets accepted. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• As I think I commented earlier on, there is a logic to this kind of approach and it is the kind of approach that a professional generalist publisher would probably take – ie go to a specialist, authoritative source and take the lead from them. It would also make everything easier and quicker. However, it does not translate well on Wikipedia. First, because on an open wiki you can't dictate and limit what people do in this way; secondly and more specifically, because the broad principle of overarching policy here for article titles is WP:COMMONNAME, which does indeed suggest that we have to take a broad overview of what name is in common use across all reliable sources. N-HH talk/edits 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Unless I misread the edit history, you were actively editing this draft while discussion was taking place, without leaving any kind of notice. This makes it very difficult to tell what people were discussing, since it’s not what’s here now. —Frungi (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus basically deleted his original proposal and posted an entirely new one in this section. As you say, that was inappropriate and confusing. I asked him on his talk page to restore his original proposal here, since people had commented on it, and to make his new proposal into a whole new draft so we can discuss it. Thank you, Frungi, for doing that for us. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually meant even this draft—it's missing some content now that was present at the time of Dr. K's comment, for instance. @Chrisrus: Do all your editing before posting it for discussion, if at all possible. If you must edit after comments have been made, describe your edits in the discussion, or mark them up with <ins>...</ins> and <del>...</del>. —Frungi (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I opposed the first version only to discover that in a subsequent edit the encyclopedias were gone too. I modified my comment accordingly to reflect the additional removal and after that I lost track. It was terrible. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose map supremancy can not be allowed. Agathoclea (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely Accepted Name - seventh draft

The primary, widely-used, English-language name of a geographic place may be determined in many ways, all of which cannot be mentioned here. Any neutral and reliable source stating that X is the name most often used for this entity will suffice absent another such source contradicts it. When in doubt, the following sources may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name. It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names.

• Disinterested, authoritative reference works include in which experts publish their findings as to the modern or historical period-appropriate widely used English-language names of Geographic places include atlases, databases, gazetteers, globes and maps, published by:
  • UK:
    • Cambridge University, including Cambridge World Gazetteer
    • HarperCollins, including The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World;
    • Oxford University Press, including [[The Oxford Atlas of the World);
  • US:
    • Columbia University Press, including the Columbia Gazetteer of the World
    • Merriam-Webster, especially for spelling of place names Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.
    • National Geographic Society, such as this free online database.
    • Omnigraphics, including Omnigraphics Gazetteer of the USA
    • Rand McNally, such as Rand McNally World Atlas;
    • The US govenment, such as:
      • Geographic Names Information System;
      • United States Board on Geographic Names (see BGN below);
      • The World Factbook, [5] maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency is current and continuously updated.
  • Canada:
    • The Geographical Names Board of Canada;
    • Natural Resources Canada, such as the [Atlas of Canada]
    • The Kitimeot Heritage Society, specifically the Kitikmeot Place Name Atlas
  • Australia
    • See Wikipedia:AUSTPLACES#Useful_Resources
    • Geoscience Australia
    • Geographical Names Boards for each state, such as Geographical Names Board

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 August 2013‎

Seventh draft discussion

• Oppose. Consider this scenario: These sources all use the official name for some country. But, for whatever reason, no one else does, not on the news, not in daily conversation, not in the streets of the country itself; they all use a different, more common name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, that’s probably the one we should be using, too; but under this version of the guideline, we’d be prohibited from doing so. I consider this unacceptable. —Frungi (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Frungi and per my comments on number 6. These drafts multiply like bacteria and are just about as attractive. I don't know if I have to start using antibiotic spray or "oppose" comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is even worse than draft #6, since it focuses entirely on atlases and gazetteers and doesn't mention even encyclopedias. (Oops, I just discovered that you have deleted encyclopedias from draft #6 also.) Please get the message: there is NO consensus for your notion that only maps, atlases and gazetteers should be listed here. It is not going to happen. Please quit proposing it. As for the arrangement of sources by country, I don't think that is an improvement. We are looking for the common name in the English-speaking world, not necessarily the name it is known by in one particular country. I do think we need sources other than US ones, and I started doing that in my draft #5, but we could use more. However, not all of the sources you have listed here are "authoritative", and some of them do not provide any helpful data at all. We will have to (gasp!) evaluate them individually to see if they are of any use to us. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"No consensus" is not a valid objection. — Chrisrus (06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

…Yes it is. That’s how Wikipedia works. If there is consensus for option A, but no consensus for option B, then option A wins, even if you think option B is better in every possible way. —Frungi (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"No consensus" was not meant as an objection anyway just a summary of the discussion above which has a very clear consensus that "maps should not have preference". Loud and clear! Frungi was just trying to soften the blow. Agathoclea (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We are looking for the common name in the English speaking world, not just the UK and the USA. There are other Englishes, too, which your draft ignores.

Yes, I would appreciate help getting the list of authoritative sources together better. Why haven't you yet contacted the Library of Congress and asked them for a list, as we were advised to do by the lady from the Association of Research Libraries? Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably because of the reasonable assumption that you would. —Frungi (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you say “look it up”, you’ve given the user a doable task. When you say “work it out”, you have not.

If you suggest they look to an atlas or gazetteer or some such place where it’s a straight-forward matter of looking a name up, they can do that. When you say “work it out from a count of usages in newspapers and such; it doesn’t work in practice.

It sounds like a nice idea to say “check both maps and newspapers”, but the two are very different. The name on a map constitutes a conclusion of experts based on raw data and evidence, whereas a usage in a newspaper is just one datum collected, and one that has to be checked in context for primacy, modernity or historical period currency, or if the word that hit on your Lexis/Nexis search or whatever referred to that place at all.

And that job in practice is not going to be being performed by disinterested professionals. On Wikipedia, few without WP:SEVEN issues or some such motivating them are going to end up being the one doing that very subject- to-bias job. And then that’s just one tally mark for one place name. How many will they need to prove commonness? Hundreds? Thousands? This has not been thoroughly thought through.

Then you have to do the same with the next hit your search engine gives you, and on until the end of it. It could be a very large number, but a very small number in the case of more obscure places is its own set of problems. What does it mean? How much weight should it be given? No one knows. You think this is an entmoot? Those are entmoots.

And who are we to be doing this Original research in the first place? Please think about that. The original research of Wikipedians is no substitute for the peer-reviewed published findings of experts on any subject. The original research of Wikipedians should no longer be allowed to trump the findings of experts in the field of Geographic place names in peer-reviewed, authoritative, widely-respected, and professionally-recommended-for-this-purpose publications.

"Work it out from raw data" is poor research librarianship; bad advice, and results in system failure. It seemed like a good idea before in theory, and was understandably written in this way for reasons that seemed valid at the time, but in practice it results in system failure and violates ideas such WP:SYN and other fundamental ideas about what Wikipedians are supposed to do and not do. Chrisrus (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the process you claim is unnecessarily exhaustive, and rather unrealistic that it would get to that point, but ignoring that for the moment: So what solution do you propose for the scenario I posed? We couldn’t simply ignore the COMMONNAME in favor of the official one used solely by these authorities. —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I could see where you might think that, but it has happened and will happen again. You should see it. They get these tables going and try to work out on the talk page which is most widely used based on these search engine results research they try to conduct, and they expect that to trump what experts say.

Don't worry. Just tell them to look up the common name, not the official name. The geographic name experts provide common names mostly and sometimes also official names to look up, but we can tell them to ignore those. Both maps and such give us "Honduras"-type names, not the official "Republic of Honduras" official names except where those are expressly stored. Official names are for passports and such, not for atlases and such. Just because a name is looked up and not worked out is no predictor that its the "official name". Both looked up common names and common names arrived at by our own research are such things as "Taiwan", not "Republic of China". And although I don't think you meant to take it this literally, WP:COMMONNAME was never intended to imply that we should call it "Philly" instead of "Philadelphia" if we could somehow determine that people call it that more often (I do). So it's not literal commonness; it's about recognizablity and appropriateness and other important effects on the reader to call it Blue spruce and not Picea pungens (as it (and a bunch of others) used to until I changed it). Just use what the experts say is the common name, not what we work out to be the common name from raw data. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

When I said “official”, I meant the name used by these authoritative sources, not the name of the country’s government. I meant two distinctly different single-word names, say, Foo and Bar. If the sources you list all call it Foo, but, for whatever reason, the rest of the English-speaking world invariably calls it Bar, your proposal has no contingency for that, even though our article should clearly be titled Bar. —Frungi (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a case in which all the "look-it-up" sources contradict what WP:COMMONNAME is getting at. Some places have nicknames that are used casually, but I suspect that's not the kind of thing you are thinking about or believe COMMONNAME was getting at. Those are usually some truncated form, which you say your not referring to, but could be another name altogether. Do you have an example in mind in which the news and such use one name while maps and such use another? Surely if all the press had changed the name it's because their style guide where they look this up tells them to. Guideline users have to have pretty strong indication that that such is the case, because it's not something likely to. If you feel strongly about it, we could add some caveat, I don't see the point but it's ok, just we don't want definitively looked up answers trumped by the original research of Wikipedianns barring extraordinary circumstances that realistically aren't going to happen. Chrisrus (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a case in which all the "look-it-up" sources contradict what WP:COMMONNAME is getting at. COMMONNAME is not "getting" anywhere, and to determine it one must look at all reliable sources. Not the ones your original research favours, but all. That includes news sources, encyclopedias, Google books etc. This has nothing to do with original research. This is simply due diligence. As I wrote before, attempting to suppress reliable sources and advocating for the supremacy of cartographic onomatology is a deliberate attempt to skew the COMMONNAME terms to your favourite version. Let me reiterate: Cartographic placename =/= COMMONNAME. The wide usage of a term, as opposed to the one used in cartography, is determined only by checking all available onomatologies. This is simple common sense, not original research. If you really believe what you say: It's hard to imagine a case in which all the "look-it-up" sources contradict what WP:COMMONNAME is getting at., then it should not be difficult to establish a convergence of all the "look-it-up" sources which would unequivocally establish the COMMONNAME. But if there is no convergence amongst all the "look-it-up" sources then you are trying, through your map supremacy advocacy, to skew the results to your favourite version. This is unacceptable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus, your objections here are based on a complete misunderstanding of the guideline, and you keep twisting it into something it is not. You say, If you say “look it up”, you’ve given the user a doable task. When you say “work it out”, you have not. If you suggest they look to an atlas or gazetteer or some such place where it’s a straight-forward matter of looking a name up, they can do that. When you say “work it out from a count of usages in newspapers and such" it doesn’t work in practice. I don't know why you can't see this, but we ARE telling people to "look it up". We are listing your preferred sources as the first and most strongly recommended item in the guideline. And we are NOT telling people to "work it out"; we are simply leaving it open to them, IF THEY WANT, to introduce evidence other than encyclopedias, atlases, etc., while cautioning about the limitations of such sources. This approach has strong enough support here to amount to consensus, and I will be introducing it into the guideline as the consensus result of discussion within the next few days. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right that approach is listing “look it up”-type resources that experts in the field recommend as the first and most strongly recommended item in the guideline. I’m very pleased with that fact, and find it a great improvement. Nice work, thank you very much.

You are right that that approach is NOT telling people to "work it out" but simply leaving the “work it out” route open to them, while cautioning of its limitations. This is a great improvement over the way it had been and I’m happy about that fact. Nice work, thank you very much.

That draft does caution but does not specifically dis-recommended. This draft neither recommends nor dis-recommends, and thereby allows.

I can't support that one because, as written, it will still be read, by those who prefer to do so, as saying they might reject a clear, definitive answer gotten by looking it up, and substitute instead an answer they worked out themselves through original research using raw data. Maybe the reader should come away with the impression that they might want to try working it out themselves only in cases where looking it up has failed and they don’t know what else to do or some such. I could support something like that. But worked-out names shouldn’t trump a definitive answer arrived at by looking it up. Universal agreement in look-it-up sources should be enough to get a definitive answer. As would "a preponderance of", or other such wordings, but, minimally, universal agreement on a name in looked-up sources should constitute a definitive answer and render such problematic working out of the name by Wikipedians pointless. Chrisrus (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you want to change WP:COMMONNAME please go there. Agathoclea (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

See my reply to Frungi, just above. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

See Frungi's reply just above. Agathoclea (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Association of Research Librarians

This process is too subject to bias and non-professional; we should seek an answer at some greater authority than us.

On Wikipedia, there are regularly issues such as whether the article Sea of Japan should be moved to “The East Sea of Korea” or any number of such cases with nationalist issues. These patriots often come well-armed with facts and reasons and authorities, and we say “well, none of that matters, because we just go by the most used English name, and the modern name, except in cases of articles like New Amsterdam. But how to establish definitively that one name really is most widely used when a place, unlike the Sea of Japan, is not used widely, commonly, or frequently mentioned? This is the dilemma.

Let's ask an authority like the Association of Research Libraries or some such. We explain the dilemma and what advice they give to place name seekers, and go with whatever they say. Chrisrus (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

we should seek an answer at some greater authority than us. Exactly. That’s why the list in WIAN (and the proposed replacement) suggests a number of different reliable sources. But if you think we could benefit from learning the methods used by someone else, feel free to go ahead and ask. —Frungi (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what do you say to this:

Dear Appropriate Person at the Association of Research Libraries:

How would you recommend Wikipedia settle disagreements over geographical names?

We regularly need powerful citations that a geographical name is primary, modern, and widely used in English-language publications. We need a procedure for settling such disputes efficiently and effectively. Are there, for instance, publications or databases where experts publish, update, and make accessible their peer-reviewed determinations as to the primary, modern, and most widely used English-language names of geographic places?

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Some Wikipedians

What are you suggesting - that we send an email every time we need a title? That's not how Wikipedia works. And if you are simply saying we should ask this organization where to look, then ask them already, and tell us what they say, and then we'll have something to talk about. All this fuzzy talk about "asking the experts" is getting us absolutely nowhere when it comes to drawing up a usable guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Just once. All we need is their recommendations of places to send place name seekers. You are right about asking them already, though. Read on:

Thoughts:

1. We create a dedicated Gmail or Hotmail account for this purpose alone, and set the password to "password". Then we use it to send this one email, that is all. What do you think about this idea?
2. Who should we send this message to? Here are some choices: http://www.arl.org/about/staff Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just use your own email address and let us know when you’ve sent it; I made an edit to the letter, but no one else seems to have any input on it. As for where to send it, you really should have these major details figured out before making this kind of proposal; it was your own idea, after all. —Frungi (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we get back to trying to agree on a wording for the Widely Accepted Name section? Let Chrisrus go ahead and contact his experts, and if he finds anything useful (such as gazetteers, that was helpful) we can add it to the guideline. In the meantime I'll try to come up with a version that incorporates the discussion since the first and second drafts, and then let's see what further changes are needed. I am hopeful that at some point we can wrap up this discussion, improve the guideline, and get back to writing an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I used the "contact us" email and got the following reply:

This type of question is not in ARL's bailiwick (we provide professional services to research libraries, but not advice on details like this.) However, as a communications professional, I would turn to the Chicago Manual of Style to answer such a question. Here is what the current edition of the Chicago Manual recommends:

8.43 Names of places—additional resources

For the spelling of names of places, consult Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary. Since names of countries and cities often change, however, even the most recent edition of such a reference work cannot be current in every detail. Moreover, not all writers will be in agreement on the proper form of every place-name (e.g., some will insist on Burma rather than Myanmar). For country names, the US Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/)—continually updated—is a good place to start. For historical works, writers and editors should attempt to use the form of names appropriate to the period under discussion.

The CMOS also points to these additional reference sources:

1. Cambridge World Gazetteer: A Geographical Dictionary. Edited by David Munro. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
2. Columbia Gazetteer of North America. Edited by Saul B. Cohen. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
3. Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America. Edited by Frank R. Abate. Detroit: Omnigraphics, 1991.
4. Oxford Atlas of the World. 16th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
5. The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. 12th ed. London: Times Books, 2007.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,

Kaylyn Groves, ARL Communications Program Officer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 August 2013‎

Nice. We can definitely add some of these specific sources to the first item in the draft, right? —Frungi (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I will work on a fifth draft including these suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Because Kaylin Groves said that the ARL isn't really the one to ask (although she was helpful), I thanked her and asked her to recommend who we ask. This is her reply: Chrisrus (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

--Start Quote--

I'd recommend the Geography & Map Division at the Library of Congress.

Here's their main webpage: http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/gmpage.html

Here's their contact info: http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/contact.html

Best, Kaylyn

--End Quote--

Settling place name disagreements

I started this thread at Wikipedia's reference desk:

What references would you suggest to settle disputes as to the primary, modern, widely used name of a geographic place in the English language? Chrisrus (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely used atlases, such as those published by the National Geographic Society and Royal Geographical Society? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See "Geographic Names Information System" for places in the United States.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Are there more ideas? Does anyone else have any ideas where the primary, modern, widely used names of Geographic places might be looked up? Chrisrus (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The source for most of the names in the U.S. Geographic Names Information System, and perhaps a more authoritative (because more established) source is the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN). Another source widely used by U.S. publishers is Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, as far as I know available only in print. The leading commercial atlas publisher in the United States is Rand McNally, and the names used in its atlases have some influence on other publishers. The Times Atlas of the World, published by the UK cartographers Collins Bartholomew, is influential even in the United States, and presumably also in the UK and elsewhere. That said, there are certainly cases on which these authoritative sources differ. Most publications have a style sheet that names a source to be regarded as authoritative on geographic names. Wikipedia might want to adopt a similar practice, perhaps preferring the national cartographic authority listed here for each English-speaking country for names within that country, then the U.S. BGN's preferred form for names in countries where English is not the official language (since no other government cartographic authority in an English-speaking country publishes standard forms for names outside the country's borders), and finally the national cartographic authority of the country in question if the BGN does not offer a standard form for a name in that country. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, Mr. Polo. Thank you very much. Please, if anything else should occur to you, if you would please let us know. Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Good! I added these suggestions to the fifth draft, and since the first paragraph was getting kind of dense and hard to read, I broke it down into bullet points. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Another User called Cambridge Bay Weather has responded saying ":There is the Atlas of Canada but if you wanted traditional names in the Kitikmeot Region then the Kitikmeot Place Name Atlas, which will also pronounce the name is useful. It makes me think we should reach out to find out where Australians, South Africans, Irish, and other English-speaking peoples go for geographical information. Chrisrus (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Geographic places are not unique in having title/name disputes. Every topic area has them. And, as with other topics, when there is a dispute you have to consult a wide variety of reliable sources to settle them... for Geographic places, appropriate sources include (but are not limited to) maps, encyclopedias, travel industry literature, news media, etc. etc. Now, some sources can be considered "more reliable than others"... and we give these more weight in our decisions... but, which sources are "more reliable" will be different from one dispute to another. There is no magic formula, because each article dispute is unique. Ultimately, choosing the best name to use for any article comes down to consensus. And it is perfectly OK to reach one decision at one article, and a completely contradictary decision at another article.
Also, please remember that we do not necessarily use "official" names in Wikipedia. If the "official name" is little used, we can (and do) favor other unofficial names that are more frequently used. There is no "one size fits all" rule... nor should there be. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)