Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Wikipedia needs truth to be credible

In naming objects, Wikipedia has to follow the truth based on scientific, historical evidences. However now's Wikipedia tends to follow the names that are commonly used instead of true ones. This disturbs Wikipedia becomes a encyclopedia with responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World historia (talk • contribs) 06:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, wikipedia also tries to be complete. A topic may have a common name, and that may be the title of the article. But the lede will also give the scientific and historical names if there are any. It will also show alternative spellings of the name if there are any. It is just that there can be only one title for the article (at least with the current wp software), so just one of the names gets chosen to be the title. The lede will normally show you every "credible" name for the topic in question. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

kadı vs. kadi

I've requested that the article kadı be moved to kadi, per WP:ENGLISH ("kadı" is the spelling in Turkish). If anyone has an opinion on this debate, please visit Talk:Kadı#Requested move. Kaldari (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS on Zoë Baird, advance notice of proposal here

I have mentioned before my view that poor visibility on existing guidance on Latin-alphabet orthography (aka "accents" "diacritics") is encouraging time-wasting disruption on en.wp. I have placed a note on WT:MOS that I would like to make a proposal to add Zoë Baird as an English-language example to WP:DIACRITICS here. I have pre-notified WT:MOS there in case anyone objects that WP:DIACRITICS is not the best place to make a proposal to add an English-language diacritics example. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no poor visibility WP:UE is well known and explains that usage shoudl follow common usage in Reliable English language sources. The MOS covers usage in articles were a name is not used for the article title and can be found at MOS:FOREIGN (and basically says follow usage in the reliable sources used in the article) where the confusion arises is were people try to bring other more obscure guidelines to the party which are either not relevant or are worded in a way that contradicts WP:UE. At the moment for example there is an attempt to get Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Diacritics to reflect clearly the guidance in MOS:FOREIGN, because at the moment some people are confused by the wording and think it contradicts the guidance given at MOS:FOREIGN.
To address you specific request for an alteration to this guideline I do not think that Zoë Baird is a good example. I think Charlotte Brontë would be better example. But as this is about "Use English" and both those names are English language names I am not sure what relevance it is to this guideline to add an English language name to this guideline. Whatever is added to this guideline must not contradict WP:UE, so before anything is added to the guideline please place on this talk page a block quote the change you wish to make to the guideline. -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps then under WP:DIACRITICS, "for example personal names Charlotte Brontë, Lech Wałęsa, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, but Franz Josef Strauss, and place name Saint-Étienne, brand Häagen-Dazs" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No because names like Lech Wałęsa have not been agreed upon using reliable English language sources and so are not good examples. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
PBS, are you saying that Lech Wałęsa is at the wrong title? It had 2 extensive RMs leading to consensus among en.wp editors that is reflected in Category:Polish people. Most editors will recognise that article titles like Lech Wałęsa have in fact been agreed upon using reliable English language sources, it is just that WP:IRS has been followed to use reliable-for-context sources, such as Frommers, Lonely-Planet, Ascherson, Sczerbiak, Biskupski rather than unreliable-for-context sources like the Daily Express. But, okay, if you do not like Lech Wałęsa then what about Václav Havel? Or do you consider Václav Havel is at the wrong title too? Is there any accented European-name article on en.wp that do you consider is at the right title? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
In the case of Lech Wałęsa the last requested move resulted in about 20 editors expressing an opinion and the result was split about 50/50. This is not as you say "consensus among en.wp editors". As to my opinions on that article title see my comments on that talk page's archive, this is not the place to debate it. As for the other names like Václav Havel, I have not taken part in a debate over that name so I do not know what the common usage in reliable English language sources is, but from a look at the English language sources used in the article usage would appear to be divided, so further investigation would be needed and as far as I can tell it has not been subject to a requested move, so it does not make a good example to use here. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Then as above please indicate an accented European-name [non-stagename, non-monarch, modern] bio on en.wp that you do consider is at the right title. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If we're trying to improve the wording or interpretation of our rules, then constructing arguments based on compatibility with our existing rules may not be helpful. At best we get a new set of rules whose internal consistency is beyond reproach but which have a weakened connection to reality and to our encyclopædic goals. We already have disputes where both sides cite our existing rules yet cannot agree... So, if we're going to improve our rules, I would rather base it on accuracy, verifiability, and readability. bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Intro for diacritics & non-diacritics versions of a name.

In an article's intro, we should be allowed to use both diacritics & non-diacritics versions of a name, when both are sourced. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we allow it already? I mean there are a few extremists who would censor either the diacritic or non-diacritic version depending on their own pov, but sourced multiple spellings or pseudonyms that are common are supposed to be present in the lead for our many readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is allowed, although it would sometimes seem silly if the diacritics are visually insignificant to the typical English-speaking reader, e.g., "La bohème or La boheme is an opera in four acts by Giacomo Puccini..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to add a doubly-sourced non-diacritics name version at Zoë Baird. It got a bad reception, however. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing. This seems to have become a very common misconception on wp. It is not silly or unnecessary to mention an alternative spelling that is "visually insignificant". If an article is titled La bohème, then for an English reader it is obvious that it "might" be written La boheme as well. What the reader doesn't know is whether "La boheme" is effectively used in English reliable sources or not. If it is used (in several reliable sources) then we add it as an alternative spelling, and this tells the reader that this rendering is also commonly used. If "La boheme" is not used in our sources then it makes no sense to add it as an alternative spelling in the lede. That's why our article Café starts with: "A café , also spelled cafe...". It would not be right (or complete) is we omit "cafe" because "visually insignificant". How is a reader supposed to know whether an alternative rendering (no matter how "obvious") is commonly used or not? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The generic cafe is a total different issue to eg Café La Monde. Agathoclea (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it's just the same. If Cafe La Monde appears as an alternative spelling in a good chunk of our reliable sources, then we mention it as a common alternative spelling in the lede. If that spelling does not appear in our reliable sources, then there is no reason (and no source) to mention it as an alternative spelling. We are diacritics neutral and we report on what we find. On what basis are you going to refuse a piece of information that is backed by several sources for the article? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Have you actually been reading Cafe? I mean more than just the lead sentence. Agathoclea (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The thing which really irritates me is the persistent wikislangish usage of the term "diacritic" for any non-ASCII Latin-derived letters (see e.g. a non-diacriticized example with "ı" above on this page). Could somebody propose a correct term for this to deprecate the usage of "diacritic" at least in official guidelines? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the examples MakeSense64 has in mind are not La bohème but tennis BLPs like "Saša Hiršzon or English Sasha Hirszon" where a tennis editor has been adding ITF names (diacritic disabled names) as if they are exonyms. WP:OPENPARA already makes it clear we don't do that. Perhaps this page should also make that clear? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
And another editor has been systematically censoring all English names from article titles and lead sentences throughout all wikipedias (English and non-English versions alike), even where well sourced. Policy says we do otherwise for the best of our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Fyunck, yes you would be the editor I am referring to, and I would be one of the "censors" you are referring to. Yes I would like to be able to "systematically censor" all "English names" from WP:TENNIS-ledes like: Saša Hiršzon or English Sasa Hirszon." Though note that yourself, and perhaps MakeSense64 above, are the only WP:TENNIS editors who are for this style of lede. we don't see other tennis editors doing this:
  • Błażej Koniusz or Blazej Koniusz (born February 22, 1988 in Świętochłowice) is a tennis player from Poland.
  • Sergio Gutiérrez Ferrol (b. Alicante March 5, 1989) and known professionally as Sergio Gutierrez-Ferrol, is a tennis player from Spain ..
  • Facundo Argüello (tennis) (born August 4, 1992), known professionally as Facundo Arguello, is a tennis player from Argentina.
  • Manuel Sánchez (tennis) (born January 5, 1991) and known professionally as Manuel Sanchez, is a tennis player from Mexico.
  • Frédéric Vitoux (born Versailles, 30 October 1970) and known professionally as Frederic Vitoux, is a former professional tennis player from France.
  • César Ramírez (born January 25, 1990) and known professionally as Cesar Ramirez, nicknamed "el Tiburón" ("the Shark"), is a tennis player from Mexico.
  • Filip Horanský (born January 7, 1993) and known professionally as Filip Horansky, is a tennis player from Slovakia.
  • György Balázs (Hungarian: Balázs György) (born Budapest, July 24, 1985) and known professionally as Gyorgy Balazs, is a tennis player from Hungary.
  • Sophie Lefèvre (born February 23, 1981 in Toulouse) and known professionally as Sophie Lefevre, is a professional French tennis player.
  • Tomislav Brkić (born Ljubuški, March 9, 1990) known professionally as Tomislav Brkic, is a tennis player from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

And so on, about 120x of these article ledes...
This is completely contrary to the lede style shown in WP:OPENPARA and WP:FULLNAME

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996) was the fourth President of France ...

As I say, I and other editors would like to remove those pointless duplications of accent-stripped names. But as with Saša Hiršzon Błażej Koniusz whoever removes the accent stripped version you immediately revert it. Anyway, since we're here at WT:Naming conventions (use English) if you consider this guideline is one of those which supports these ledes then please could you indicate the wording in WP:Naming conventions (use English) that justifies these sort of ledes? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

btw note that other tennis editors are also removing your "English names" Rüdiger Haas (b Eberbach, 15 December 1969), also known as Rudiger Haas. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Iio the name used in the article title should reflect common English language usage. The first line of the article should also contain that name either in the text or a footnote, because otherwise there is a danger that the article may not show up in internet searches and we do no reader a favour if the article is not available to the reader in the first page returned in a search. As it happens Google has a policy of placing Wikipedia high up its search lists, but that is not guaranteed to remain and not all other search engines may give that weighting. Late last year I moved a page back to its common name (Popski's Private Army), because under it official name, without Popski's Private Army in the text, the page did not show up in Google searches even though the redirect ("Popski's Private Army") still existed.
In cases such as Saša Hiršzon the obvious solution is to place the article under whatever is the most common usage in reliable English language sources and if that is "Sasha Hirszon" then use the format
Sasha Hirszon (Croatian Saša Hiršzon) ...
-- PBS (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Also Iio you should have a look at the restrictions placed on the initiator of this section and ask yourself if you crusade for removing accent-stripped names from articles (whether or not supported by usage in reliable sources) could be considered by disinterested parties such as the members of the arbitration committee to be the mirror image of his/her behaviour (See also Wilfried Böse's denial before you make the obvious retort). -- PBS (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
PBS,
The "Sasha" above is a typo. "Sasa Hirszon" shows up perfectly well in Google searches, so your example of moving No. 1 Demolition Squadron to Popski's Private Army is not needed. Does your suggestion for Sasha Hirszon (Croatian Saša Hiršzon) still hold if it is Sasa Hirszon (Croatian Saša Hiršzon), which it is?
If it does still hold, then could you please provide examples from en.wikipedia for the style Sasa Hirszon (Croatian Saša Hiršzon) since this is not what is shown in WP:OPENPARA
I will ignore personal attacks such as "crusade," and threats, it would be helpful if you would engage in the discussion by providing an example for the style abve. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
PS - I have looked at Wilfried Böse as instructed and seen that he is reported to have told a Jewish passenger who had showed to Böse his Auschwitz tattoo, "I'm no Nazi! ... I am an idealist."
Perhaps you will explain the relevance of that to this discussion later, but first can you please provide an [non-stagename, non-monarch, modern] bio en.wp example for the style Sasa Hirszon (Croatian Saša Hiršzon) since this is counter the lede style shown in WP:OPENPARA and WP:FULLNAME:

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996) was the fourth President of France ...

Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

An aside

I agree with Incnis Mrsi's point about the term "diacritic". For instance, one of the recent requested moves involved Kadı, and ı certainly isn't a diacritic. (It's a dotless i, commonly used to represent a particular vowel sound when writing Turkic languages in a latin alphabet). However, I feel that this is a side issue; even if "diacritic" isn't strictly accurate, we all know what we're talking about when we see it, the term is already overwhelmingly dominant in discussions around here, and the inaccuracy doesn't really affect the substance of the dispute. So, although I would support a more accurate label (ie. "characters which are in ISO/IEC 6937 but not in US-ASCII"), I suggest that we keep this question out of the main thread, because the main discussion is big enough already. bobrayner (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

no argument from me. Agathoclea (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
nor from me. I also think a Turkish name would be a better [additional] example to "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" - it's possible that some Users don't see "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" as foreign in the same way that "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk not Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" would be foreign. And WP:USEENGLISH might actually get read for what it says rather than what the shortcut currently suggests. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is necessary or even beneficial that people see the example as "foreign". --OpenFuture (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" be removed, just that "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk not Mustafa Kemal Ataturk" be added. Experience suggests that some Users will object to accents on French Spanish Czech whatever names and cite WP:DIACRITICS without realising that the only example is "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich." It doesn't have to be Turkish, "Karel Čapek not Karel Capek" will acheive the same effect. Even "François Mitterrand not Francois Mitterand" would acheive the effect. My concern is that "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" doesn't poke editors in the eye and say FOREIGNER! And yet 99.9% of diacritic names will be foreign people/places. Ireland on its own isn't foreign enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you said. I still don't see why it should poke people in the eye as foreign. It's hardly relevant how foreign it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi OpenFuture,
Thanks for the comment. Perhaps, but theoretically would you recognise that there may be 1 or 2 English-speaking editors who exist who consider an Irish person less foreign than a French or Polish person, and that some people would find it helpful for the guideline to feature a truly "foreign" name? Or, if you might not have a view on that, would you think that an Irish name is a frequent and typical example that easily transfers to names like e.g. Lech Wałęsa?
But back to the proposal, whether Tomás Ó Fiaich and François Mitterrand are equally foreign or unforeign or not then there's another argument for having François Mitterrand alongside Tomás Ó Fiaich. Who is better known? Who features in WP:OPENPARA?
Any view on this? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If an example of diacritics being used is added, it should be balanced with an example of diacritics not being used: Ho Chi Minh, not Hồ Chí Minh. Kauffner (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't disagree with this but to compliment it should be a European example (because Asian languages are in a state of flux on en.wp - Hawaiian terms use okinas, Ho Chi Minh himself is anglicized, but 100s of Vietnamese geo articles are not). It should be a personal name (since geographical names can be exonyms, exonyms for people are less common). Can you propose an example of a European name where diacritics are not used? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start where existing WP consensus already is strongest, French names:

The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. Example: François Mitterrand

François Mitterrand is already used twice at WP:FULLNAME and WP:OPENPARA so is an uncontroversial example. As above if anyone can think of a modern French person bio which isn't titled with diacritics as a counter example, please say so. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The consensus is that article title under the name commonly used in reliable English language sources. Whether or not that is true for all French names can not be ascertained without looking at all French biography articles and comparing the article title with the common name in English reliable sources. Iio, I think you are confused about something: The title of an article like Tony Blair is not under the subjects full name. As to the name that is used at the start of the the text, it should reflect usage in reliable English language sources, whether "François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand" is a good example depends on whether reliable English language sources agree that this is his full name. But whatever his full name is it is it is not directly relevant to the article title. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi PBS
As I have noted before when you gave Tony Blair as an example, Tony Blair does not have accents to remove. Back to the accents question, can you please link to me where you have answered the request to provide 1x a modern European accented name bio (non-monarch, non-stagename, non-ß) where you agree with the current en.wikipedia article title?
Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Every Vietnamese biography is currently at an ASCII title. As for geography, WP:NCGN says to follow Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encarta, none of which use Vietnamese diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner, yes I have seen that most of the VN bios have been moved. I have also seen the moves to towns you made or requested admins to make for you after Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1. This kind of confusion is one reason why I don't think a VN example would be uncontroversial and think an uncontroversial example like François Mitterrand which is already enshrined in WP:OPENPARA etc. would be better. Which is why I ask "Can you propose an example of a European name where diacritics are not used?" - I'll ask again, can you? Because if you can it would be a sensible balance to François Mitterrand. Can you provide one? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, just go for it: RM Napoleon to Napoléon Ier, Napoleon III to Napoléon III, and Francis I to François Ier. N'est-ce pas chaque mot de plus beau en Français? Kauffner (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner
I said modern. Can you please link to me where you have answered the request to provide 1x a modern European accented name bio (non-monarch, non-stagename, non-ß) where you agree with the current en.wikipedia article title?
Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If modified letters are not commonly used in reliable English language sources they should not be used in the article titles. As to pointing out article titles Iio given your recent behaviour of moving such article titles without putting in a RM request (or it seems to me going into much detail about English language usage), providing such names to you reminds me of Beans. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see request above, Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The guideline already contains "The use of modified letters ..." so the proposed addition of "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters." is unnecessary and could lead to confusion with the sentence already in the article. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully it will lead to non-confusion, admitting that en.wikipedia uses diacritics in modern person bio titles and bringing peace to the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner. You introduced Vietnamese, I did not.
I read that again, how exactly is me not mentioning a Vietnamese instrument trying to "trying leverage it into something bigger", are you 100% certain you're not raising it to avoid disagreeing with François Mitterrand having a French name?
I proposed Tomás Ó Fiaich + François Mitterrand, not Tomás Ó Fiaich + a Vietnamese musical instrument. Do you have a contrary example to François Mitterrand? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Now, rather than discussing what no one has proposed, is there anyone who can provide a contrary example to François Mitterrand, modern European accented name bio (non-monarch, non-stagename, non-ß). 1x example. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggested adding "Ho Chi Minh" as an example of a name without diacritics. You responded by saying that the Vietnamese titles are "in a state of flux", as if that was something that was happening independently of your own activity. As for Napoleon, the reason he doesn't have diacritics is not related to his being a monarch. It's because the name is extremely well known, so there are editors know that it's not supposed to have a diacritic. Kauffner (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner
Yes, I do have reservations about some of your moves to Vietnamese articles, particularly the moves after Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 but moreso to the music, culture, cuisine articles which are actual Vietnamese words not possibly exonyms. Be that is it may, I don't see there's any way you can claim with that Vietnamese titles on en.wp are in an equivalent state of stability as French titles. This is why I proposed a French example. However maybe Ho Chi Minh is a good idea as a counter balance to François Mitterrand. It would effectively recognise that to find examples of accent-removed names we have to move outside of Europe to Asia. The only problem with that is that Ho Chi Minh would have to take into account other Latin-alphabet Asian names which retain diacritics, WP:HAWAII for example. So okay, provisionally if others support Ho Chi Minh being added, then fine. That dealt with, now do you also have a European example? (non-monarch, non-stagename, non-ß) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

below vs after

I changed the word after to below as it has been misunderstood to add the categorization templates in a seperate edit to lock the redirect, a behaviour that got someone ARBCOM sanctioned topic banned (and later longterm blocked) recently. Agathoclea (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Please clarify. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
ANI thread for the one and this for the misunderstanding. Agathoclea (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Embedding foreign names (like names with diacritics) in English Wikipedia

CLOSED
Proposal did not gain any support. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Yes, there have been many debates on wiki about this, and there have been many links to many references indicating that English takes in letters with diacritics in names etc. It is a situation similar to loan words. The words aren't originally English but are considered English. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen any debates on Wikipedia that decided that these Wikipedia guidelines are wrong, and that W3C recommendations are rubbish. Would you please provide links, if you have any that support this POV. It is surely not true that there have been RfCs with such conclusions. LittleBen (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What guideline are you pointing to? There is no guideline that says they aren't English. The guideline you link to above just says for Non-English words you should use those templates. But nowhere in that guideline does it indicate diacritic names are Non-English. And the W3C also doesn't make that declaration anywhere. There have been entire RfCs on the this debate. You have been given the links to them numerous times in the past. The wiki is split about 50/50 on the topic. About half the wiki thinks they are usable English and about half don't think they are. I think you severely misunderstand what the debate about diacritics has been based on. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely the Unicode standards cited above define which parts of Unicode are reserved for which languages. Are you saying that an RfC can vote such an international standard to be wrong? LittleBen (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The Unicode standards don't reserve letters only to ever be used by a given language. They only indicate what the letters are and what languages usually use them. But numerous characters are used in numerous languages. That being said everything on Wikipedia is determined by consensus so technically yes, the wide community could decide they didn't wish to adopt a given set of standards. But as I say the Unicode standards don't say these characters must only be used for a given language. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Unicode characters are mapped to contiguous blocks; some blocks are reserved for certain languages, and some are shared. The Unicode standards are quite clear about which characters are reserved and which characters are shared. The great majority of fonts do not—of course—support all the Unicode characters. As explained in Wikipedia and other web accessibility guidelines, if non-English text is embedded then screen readers are unlikely to be able to read it if the language is not properly marked up. Some Japanese and Chinese characters even share the same character codes, and look quite different if they are displayed in the wrong font—the font is determined by the "lang" markup. The Wikipedia community has surely not decided to ignore the Wikipedia guidelines or the Unicode standard, right?
  • There's a parallel discussion about language templates here. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Except we aren't talking about Japanese or Chinese characters. We are talking about latin-based diacritics. Which are recognized by screen readers and most (though obviously not all) fonts do support them. You keep throwing Japanese or Chinese characters into your debate which is a complete red herring because nobody believes we should use non-latin based text. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary to start so many parallel discussions? This seems to be your personal style. It would be more helpful if you had the dicussion in the most relevant place and linked to it. --Boson (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It might be appropriate to add a comment to the appropriate template documentation that it is permissible to use the template for language-marking text for accessibility or other reasons, regardless of the actual status of the word. For instance ''{{lang|fr|''déjà vu''|nocat=true}}'' would indicate to accessibility aids that the phrase should be pronounced with a French 'u' in this particular context. Any note there or elsewhere should, of course, expressly state that this is without prejudice to the English status of the word or text. --Boson (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And of course whole quotes should be wrapped in a template which is what that blog is suggesting. Proper names are a different situation, because they won't be in dictionaries anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No because a government is a separate entity from wikipedia who matches information to the way they like to see it or need it. We are an encyclopaedia whose purpose is to give correct and full information to the reader. Their needs and our needs are different. We don't go by internal style guides of various organizations, though we might take them along with others into account when creating ours. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I said that "if the language(s) is/are properly marked up, then screen readers can read the language code but (will) skip text that (is in a language that) they can't read". Surely that's quite clear? The screen reader knows from the markup that it's Japanese text, for example, but will not try to read the text if the language is not supported. In this case, if Japanese text is embedded in English but not properly marked up, the screen reader would probably spew out garbage or crash. LittleBen (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Since the source you cited stated that most screen readers would not switch from English to French, your comment that they could "skip the text that they can't read" suggested that you might be inviting the inference that such screen readers would then ignore anything marked as French. So I asked. What do you think they do when confronted with a text marked as French? Do they treat it as English (as if it were not marked) or do they treat it as an unsupported language (meaning that they ignore it)? --Boson (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The review cited above, as I read it, says that the most popular software (75% of the market) could switch between English and French if the text was properly marked up. I think the article said that, at that time, such software could handle only five languages (but the ability to switch between other languages was not mentioned). How the screen reader would handle unsupported languages depends on the software, but I would presume that it would see the language markup code (Japanese, for example) and probably just announce "Japanese text", but not try to read it, if the reader did not support it. LittleBen (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yup. And you have never come close to establishing a consensus that supports your personal interpretation of said guidelines. My point is to wonder how long, and in how many forums, you intend to fight this battle before accepting your position is not widely supported? Your behaviour in this regard is rather predictable as you aren't the first person who has tried to force Wikepedia to suit their own viewpoints by trying to wear editors out. It never works. Resolute 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So please provide a link to the RfC (if any) or guideline that decides that diacritics must be used virtually universally in titles of articles relating to Europe (or Vietnam, for that matter)—and an RfC (if any) or guideline that decides that the most widely-used English name will be stripped out of the lede, and only the less-frequently-used version with diacritics used in the article. Isn't this ignoring established guidelines and trying to impose one's own POV on Wikipedia by intimidating admins. who favor a neutral POV, and trying to wear other editors out. LittleBen (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You mean like WP:MOSBIO which says "the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)." The full name of the individual includes diacritics. We don't use the common name in the lead paragraph we use the full name. As for wearing editors out, it is you that is posting the same conversations over and over in multiple forums, not the ones who disagree with you. So if anyone is trying to wear people out it is the one creating discussions in a million different areas of the wiki instead of one centralized place. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Your question assumes I agree with you that an "English name" excludes diacritical marks. Since I do not, it is invalid. As to this silly tug-of-war over Vietnamese article titles especially, you will note that I generally have not participated in the move requests and counter-requests, other than to say that your arguments have been consistently unconvincing. I do know that the usage of diacrtics in general has dramatically increased in English media as of late, and would suggest if the horse you are beating is not already dead, it is very close. Resolute 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm a member of the vast majority of English-speakers who don't understand (for example) Czech; but I do know the difference between ‹c› and ‹č› and I want to know which it is so that I have a chance of pronouncing it more correctly. There presumably exist readers who can say the same of Vietnamese, and I want them to have the same benefit even if the diacritics are meaningless to me; I am not harmed by seeing the funny squiggles, now that Unicode fonts are generally available. If Wikipedia excluded everything that a substantial number of English-speakers don't understand, I wouldn't bother with it. —Tamfang (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with presenting important terms in both languages in the lede, using language templates that properly tag foreign words; that is essentially what I say in my brief essay here. The key issue is that the majority of Wikipedia users—who cannot read, write, or remember difficult diacritics or other foreign languages—should be given a choice. (Foreign-language article titles do not give the reader a choice.) The same template-based approach (showing both versions of the word) can be used in the article body. With very simple and familiar diacritics like in Pelé it is surely unnecessary to show the non-diacritic version of the name, but this should not be a general rule for all names with diacritics.
  • However, there are people who insist on adding diacritics universally to article titles, and then removing the version without diacritics from the article body (even when the version without diacritics is much more widely used in English sources). Two problems with the "simply adding diacritics makes an article title superior" mantra are as follows:
  • Article titles with diacritics cannot be disambiguated in a way that an English speaker can understand—without a mishmash of foreign languages and English. So adding diacritics to the titles "Buon Ma Thuat city" or "Dong Hoi city" gives "Buôn Ma Thuột city" and "Đồng Hới city". Such a mishmash looks unprofessional if not ridiculous.
  • Another problem with the "where possible, add diacritics to titles of BIO articles" mantra is that the perpetrators do not bother to check the correct name in the corresponding foreign version of Wikipedia. "Simply adding diacritics" to the title "Manuel Sanchez (tennis)" gives "Manuel Sánchez (tennis)", another mishmash title. The problem with this is that the article title in Spanish Wikipedia is "Manuel Sánchez Montemayor". So simply adding diacritics to the English version of a name does not necessarily make it an acceptable article title name in Spanish, for example, and the full Spanish name would probably not be recognized in English.
  • Be aware that foreign languages in English article titles should be properly tagged. (There aren't any markup tags for mishmash article titles.) The language here suggests that foreign-language page titles (including redirects) on English Wikipedia are a heavy load on the servers. So much for "redirects are free". Foreign languages within the page are handled by the browser. LittleBen (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that "Buôn Ma Thuột city" is any more ridiculous than "Buôn Ma Thuột is a city in Vietnam". —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that "Buon Ma Thuot is a city in Vietnam" is an acceptable article title? —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the Manuel Sánchez Montemayor example still gets used. Has no-one explained the reason why in Spanish names are longer than in English? Perfect case of WP:UE unlike the fallacy of dropping diacritics making something English. Agathoclea (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I was suggesting that surely Manuel Sánchez is neither the most widely-used version of the name in English nor an acceptable Spanish name. Simply adding diacritics to a widely-used English version of a name doesn't necessary "improve" it. Names deserve a certain minimum of research, like checking the corresponding foreign-language Wikipedia (where they will surely be found if they are considered notable). LittleBen (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that there's an article on Tokyo, but another article on Tōkyō Station. Isn't that ridiculous? The Japan-related MoS doesn't seem to suggest that consistency is preferable (macrons in the lede is surely the "standard"?) No respectable English source would write it as Tōkyō Station. More mishmash. LittleBen (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand "users should be given a choice". Should there be a user preference switch, "don't ever show me any damn foreign squiggles"? Or are you saying that when an article mentions Đồng Hới it ought to say, "(if diacritics hurt your eyes, look here instead: Dong Hoi)"?
Obviously an article with funny characters in its title ought to have a "plain" redirect so that the reader has the choice of putting the easier-to-type version in the search box. —Tamfang (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Quote: I don't understand "users should be given a choice". The standard for foreign languages is to put both the foreign language term, how it is commonly written in English and how it is pronounced—and optionally also the literal meaning in English where appropriate—in the lede (first sentence of the article). See the Chinese MoS or most Vietnamese articles for examples. LittleBen (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • How is the user expected to guess what the (redirected) plain English version of a title with complex diacritics is? I don't think it's obvious to most users: "Redirected from" is displayed in very tiny letters. LittleBen (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • One of the main criteria for article titles is surely recognizability. For foreign words, the recognizability criteria is easy: foreign words like résumé that have been around a while (and also words of foreign origin that are recognized as being shorter, simpler, easier to remember, and more appropriate than their English equivalent—e.g. tsunami vs. tidal wave) are adopted into English, and begin to appear in dictionaries. The "recognizability" criteria for names or people and places is surely that quite famous people or places whose names or nicknames have simple diacritics, and would be recognized by large numbers of English-speaking people, are considered "recognizable": Pelé is an example. Names—with complex diacritics—of relatively-unknown people (and places) are not going to be recognized, and the majority of English Wikipedia users, supporters, and editors, surely won't be able to read, write, or remember them. For such unrecognizable names with diacritics, the version of the name without diacritics should be used in the article title, so that the majority of users can read and write it. Making Wikipedia less accessible, and adversely affecting its usability, is not an "improvement". LittleBen (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ignorance is cureable - stupitity lasts a lifetime. Most people coming to Wikipedia are looking for the cure. The question of being "recognizable" has to be also seen in the context of the article. An article on a mathematical conept will be just as lost on a chav as the sqiggles on a Vietnamese name, but that chav will hardly ever bother looking it up. The people looking to better themselves on the other hand should not be deprived based on the fact that there are a few people around who can't be bothered. Agathoclea (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • How many major publishers are so stupid, or so ignorant, that they choose titles containing Vietnamese diacritics for books intended for English native speakers, then? (Excepting "Learn Vietnamese!" textbooks, of course). LittleBen (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects from non-English titles

Currently the policy says "Redirects from non-English names are encouraged." This is misleading because according to WP:RFD "redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created". For example Venezia redirects to Venice, because the Italian title is relevant to an Italian city, but the Finnish name Venetsia does not.

I would like the wording to be changed to clarify this but I'm not sure how exactly to put it. Siuenti (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason for it is when you transliterate there can be different versions of the name. What it is saying is redirect the other versions because there can be more than one way to Anglicize a name. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "Redirects from non-English names relevant to the topic are encouraged.", followed by some examples of what is considered relevant would be better? Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Allow referencing non-English sources in naming articles?

In deciding on the title for an article on a less widely-known biographical figure outside of the Anglophone and English-official-language world, may one refer not only to English language literature, but also to other language literature as well as to local usage? The question arises where on the one hand there are claims that in English sources one form of referring to the subject seems to dominate, but on the other, that a different form dominates in local/popular usage as well as significant sources in another language. The articles in question originally used the latter but have been changed to different interpretations of the former, and there are active proposals to restore to the original stable titles. For the particulars, see discussions re the articles on the last two of three rulers of the precolonial Maasina Diina state: Amadu Seku -> Seku Amadu II -> Amadu II of Masina and Amadu Amadu -> Seku Amadu III -> Amadu III of Masina (in each case this shows the sequence of title changes from the local Malian & main French usage [in English orthography] to 2 different interpretations of what apparently is more frequent usage in English sources). The discussion has referenced Wikipedia naming guidelines, which is why I bring the question here. My thinking is that English has become so globalized and en.wikipedia.org so influential for knowledge dissemination, that we cannot avoid reference both to local use in another language(s) (in this case mainly Fulfulde) and to significant other language literature (in this case French) when deciding how to title articles on subjects that are locally important (in this case in Mali), but internationally much less well-known. Articles on the English Wikipedia inevitably influence how and in what terms knowledge is shared globally, even on subjects most important in places where English is not spoken, so I'm proposing that in such cases, naming guidelines allow reference to appropriate non-English sources and usage.--A12n (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: IOW these are not topics with no established usage in English-language sources, but neither is there a great English language literature on subjects relating to the Maasina Diina. English language sources are comparatively recent; the earliest academic studies of the region were in French, and without having delved into it, I suspect there are still more sources in French. It doesn't seem like the guidelines anticipate this kind of intermediate condition, where there is some number English-language sources, even some very good ones, but not so extensive a body of work, nor one that has influenced popular use in English (e.g., in historical fiction). Hence proposing that reference to other language material be considered appropriate.--A12n (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but it is difficult to discuss in the abstract, so can you propose the additional wording that you think covers it and then perhaps someone else can play devils advocate with that wording. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
In general, if English-language sources exist at all, then you should follow the name that the English-language sources use, even if 95% of the world's sources on the subject are in some other language and use some other name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is always appropriate in practice. I think the point is that the English term has to become "established" as an English term, and this can only be done by the English language community. This may be not very well defined but it is considerably more than a majority of a total of less than 100 Google hits. For instance, an English word does not become established as the established term by being used by a non-linguist foreigner or English journalist translating ad hoc, in a particular context, on the fly and under pressure. So if an American historian with little knowledge of German writes a book and a few articles using the terms "Neander Valley Man", "the Third Kingdom", the "Dagger Push Legend", etc.) and these are copied by a similarly incompetent British journalist in a few articles, we do not necessarily accept those as established English terms, even if they represent the majority usage at the time. For these examples, of course, the question no longer arises, because other terms have become established, but in doubtful cases this usually only happens if someone authoritative uses a particular term and a large number of other authors copy him or her. If there are a few English language sources for the name of a location in a small German town (including the English website of the Kleinkleckersdorf Tourist Board and a speech by the English-born head of the German federated state in question), it may be preferable to use the original German name or a different translation, based, for instance, on the established translations for the components of the name or a general convention that the original name is used for such items (e.g. names of districts, streets, rivers, etc.).Another reason to deviate from such usage may be consistency. For instance, if - because of changing historical conventions regarding translation of names - the majority of sources refer to Henry I and Henry II but Heinrich III (but never mix Henry and Heinrich in the same book), we need to consider using either "Henry" or "Heinrich" consistently for the grandfather, the father, and the son. --Boson (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your Henry example, we should follow the lead in reliable sources. This was the debate about construct consistencies in the titling of article about monarchs such as Elizabeth II because the WP:NCROY had a set of rules that sort of mimicked reliable sources (left over from the days before the main policy page common use in reliable sources and still relied on common name in all sources). The sort of consistency for grandfathers leads to all sorts of confusion and depending on how one groups articles can cause conflict in different groupings, see for example the debates on article titles like Byron (should that title be grouped into the standard format as is used for aristocrat subjects or as used in poetry literature). This approach of following reliable sources leads to inconsistencies in article titles, but it leads to keeping titles closer to those used by reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Boson, I think that you're trying to determine the article title for the next century or two, which is not what we're doing here. If all (or nearly all) of the English-language sources say "the Third Kingdom", then we should, too. When the English-language sources later adopt "the Third Reich", then we'll MOVE the page to the new title. But we shouldn't be looking in our crystal balls and choosing a title based on our personal beliefs that the current most common choice of English-language sources will change some day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all for the feedback. I'm slow to get back to this. Do not have a suggested wording on a modified policy, but could try to spin something out. With reference to the original cases (Amadu Seku and Amadu Amadu) I got confirmation from a professor who had used numbered forms of these names "to simplify" reference in his works, but that these were not intended to be disseminated as titles. Basically some others (not all, but enough to make a significant count) took this up, and now we have the case where one could argue that the numbered forms are more common in English. This sort of thing can happen in a rarefied/specialized area of study, where some simplification of usage by a scholar gets taken up and multiplied by others taking it as an authoritative reference, which then others will come along and interpret as an established English usage. Never mind context. One of the safety mechanisms, if you will, for such situations would be to widen the scope of reference - in this case not only to understand the origin of a particular usage, but what is done in the language(s) that may refer to the subject more frequently and perhaps even popularly/colloquially (in this case French and Fula). Another aspect of a modification of guidelines for Wikipedia article naming would be guarding against creation of artifacts, which is a significant potential issue given how widely WP articles are mirrored and referenced. In other words, the titles we ended up with to replace Amadu Seku and Amadu Amadu are forms you don't see anywhere, but were promoted based on a count of sources using numbered forms (Amadu II and Amadu III) plus reference to an older European naming convention of adding the place - so we now have Amadu II of Masina and Amadu III of Masina, which are inventions but will now propagate elsewhere because they were promoted on WP. This seems divergent from the intention of the WP naming guidelines, but was justified with reference to those guidelines.--A12n (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The usual translation conventions for that language

I am going to revert the change. I understand what Bermicourt is getting at, but I think it needs more discussion and I think it is change in the wrong place. Also the example Bermicourt has used may not be the best, as there is a question of whether the specific instance given there should be a translation if there are bo established usage in English-language sources. A better choice might be university names. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to discuss, but it does need addressing. As a translator I often come across proper names for which there is no or little significant precedence in the English language. Geographical names are one example, institutions like universities, as you rightly point out, are another. In most cases we have a number of more famous examples where there is a well-known English precedent for translation (usually we keep the proper part of the name as it is and translate the generic bit in a way which corresponds to normal English practice) and it therefore makes sense to take that as a guide as to how to handle little known examples (not slavishly though - we always need to leave room for a genuine exception). I'm happy to run with better examples; it's the concept of WP:USEENGLISH that we need to flesh out in this particular area. Bermicourt (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Madrid

I made an edit HERE that illustrates the point being articulated. The previous example, Madrid, was ambiguous and confusing for the reason I gave in my edit summary: in essence, it did not actually illustrate the point at all. Hopefully others will also agree with the change to "San Juan" (there are many other examples that could had been used) but if my edit summary isn't clear, will be happy to expand further. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Personally I do not think it was confusing, but as you do, I have changed the city from one that could be confused with others of the same name, to Berlin another well known capital city and its equally well known neighbour Warsaw a the first counter example. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
San Juan was disambiguated via wikilinks, so how can it "be confused"? Also, (1) and most importantly, how is Berlin any better than Madrid?, and (2) what does being and neighbour or even being well-known have anything to do with fulfilling the 3 necessary and sufficient conditions stated in "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language"? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
From the edit history Madrid is a bad example since it is not only the local version but, it just so happens, that Madrid is also the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" anyway. OTOH, you would not title San Juan as "Saint John".( Mercy11)
With Madrid one could argue that as there is more than one language in Spain and so it is not necessarily clear which language we are saying is the same (they probably all use Madrid ... but that would take time to check). In Germany there is only one language so this is less of a problem to verify the statement. We could use Paris and Rome as a pair instead of Berlin and Warsaw, or go back to the long standing Madrid and Aragon, I am not fussed about that as it does not really matter. As to your argument about translation, I do not think that is a relevant point, or are you suggesting that Johannesburg could be an alternative as it could be as John's Hill? (or we could have fun with Hook of Holland). We determine the title of articles by the frequency of use in reliable English language sources, so possible translations are irrelevant (unless they are sometimes used to name the place). I think names of minor cities that need to be disambiguated is not a good idea as the name will not be known to a significant number of people who read the page and so using a name that is well known is undesirable. I also think that the name you chose is particularly inappropriate because San Juan, Puerto Rico is administered by the US and is little different from using the name es:Gibraltar. -- PBS (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not married to San Juan; what I am saying is that neither Berlin nor Madrid satisfy the 3 necessary and sufficient conditions stated in "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" to be used as examples. Something else is needed. Also, the example to illustrate the convention does not have to be of a city. Consider that the "Naming convention (use English)" is not titled "Naming convention for cities (use English)". BTW, thanks for your explanation about the Madrid vs. Berlin case; I had not considered the multi-local language case. However, both Madrid and Berlin still fall short of addressing the fundamental issue, namely, that the example to be used needs to be one (whether a city, or a park, organization, TV series, mall, prominent person, chemical compound, etc, etc) that actually illustrates an article title that satisfies the 3 necessary and sufficient conditions stated in "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". Also, while a "well known" city name (park, company, newspaper, biography, planetary system, etc) might be preferable to a little known one, that is not a show-stopper. A show stopper would be an example that does not satify all 3 necessary and sufficent conditions stated in the lead statement (as Madrid and Berlin do). Also political affiliation have nothing to do with the 3 necessary and sufficient conditions stated in the lede. Thus to state that San Juan (Gibraltar or whatever) is a bad example because it is administered by the US, is, really, so far incomprehensible to me (What's the use of finding a sovereign city/state if it fails any of the 3 necessary and sufficnet conditions? You would had accomplished nothing.). If you like cities, how about Buenos Aires? That name (not the title, but the name) is not in English yet it satisfies all the 3 necessary and sufficient conditions. Even better yet, how about Isla de la Juventud? or Caja de Muertos? Notice that these last two have other names in English (see their articles) but, per Naming conventions (use English), their articles are named using "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" (their titles are consistent with the frequency of use in reliable English language sources). Also note that for the last two, the usual English version is also the local version, and that it is not one that "differs somewhat from the local form" (like Warsaw, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, and Christopher Columbus do), and that is also is not one that is "completely different" from the local version (like Germany and Mount Everest are). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The simplicity of the initial name was the reason for its selection and I think that is being lost in your most recent change. As we have yet to find a suitable replacement I have reverted to the initial pair which should remain in place until such time as there is a consensus for a change reached here on this talk page (WP:BRD. I suggest that you advertise this discussion more widely to bring in more editors so that perhaps a consensus to change the example be reached. -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

When did I ever say I was against consensus? In fact, when did I ever object to adopting examples that are "simple"? You seem to have missed my point: Simplistic examples cannot be used merely on the basis that they may be better known to readers. Such purported examples need to -actually- illustrate the point that The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language...Often this will be the local version...). I have already demonstrated above why Madrid fails to illustrate the point. As such, something else than Madrid was needed. In the spirit of a good faith dialogue you suggested Berlin. Regrettably, Berlin was not a valid example either because, like Madrid, it didn't illustrate the point. In response, I suggested several examples that do illustrate the point, I picked the best among them, I afforded you time to respond to my selection and I uploaded it, trusting that it would be agreeable to you. However, you reverted it (HERE) objecting to it on the ad nauseam basis that it is better to use a locale that is well known (aka, "simplicity") than the choice I was suggesting and had implemented. I have shown how my choice of an example is an air-tight, ironclad, point-illustrative choice, but you appear unable to compromise. Still, you appear to miss the point of my extensive dialogue with you: for an example to be valid, it needs to be, first and foremost, illustrative of the point and, then, as a distant (but not required) second, it would also be -desirable- if the example available was one that was well-known to readers. Again, I am not married to Caja de Muertos, we could use anything that satisfies the 3 necessary and sufficient conditions of the lead statement. In an effort to resolve the impasse, I have a question for you: You state that "the simplicity of the initial name was the reason for its selection". Question: Where is that documented? Perhaps you can point to an earlier discussion or archive that supports your claim as so far I have failed to find it. In any event, I am starting a RfC on this issue as we have failed to wind down into an agreement of any sort. If you care to respond you should do so in the section below per WP:RfC. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
The edit that introduced Madrid was Revision as of 22:16, 12 March 2008. -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand the points you are raising but I do not consider them as important as giving an example of two words that most readers will already know, so I don't think the changes you made improve the paragraph but makes it more opaque. As you altered my change, presumably you did not think that adequate, so it is best to go back to the stable version until a consensus for a change is reached here on the talk page. As of now, I have not responded to the RfC in the next section as I think it would help if third person has commented first. -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The reference in your response (HERE) to my question does not show any prior consensus. It is nothing more than a diff showing when the change was made. In fact, it doesn't even support the claim that "simplicity of the initial name was the reason for its selection" either. As such, your claim of simplicity as a prior reason by others doesn't stand. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
If something has been in a guideline for four years without a challenge either with an edit, or a section on the talk page, then it is fair to assume that the issues is stable and that the silence can be taken as consensus. Now that you have challenged that consensus let it can be discussed and maybe a new consensus will emerge. -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

PBS, your appeal to tradition is unconvincing in Wikipedia circles. Your thoughts that if something hasn't been challenged before "then it is fair to assume that the issues is stable and that the silence can be taken as consensus" are both No and No. This is not the way we do things at Wikipedia. I suggest you review the links I provide here. That is how things are done here. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

PBS is right: WP:SILENCE is presumed to indicate consensus, especially on heavily watched pages like our policies and guidelines. If something sticks around on a guideline for multiple years, then there was a consensus for it.
PBS is also right when he says that WP:Consensus can change in this discussion. You don't need to waste time trying to prove that there never was a consensus for this particular example. It doesn't matter what the consensus was in the past. You only need to determine whether it could be improved, and whether there is a consensus now for your proposed improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure why you moved WhatamIdoing reply at 03:49, 8 June 2013 down into the next section but I have it back here as it is the answer I would have given. Please do not refactor this section again. -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Madrid" a good example of "Naming conventions (use English)" ?

The editors here still prefer 'Madrid' to the other possibilities, and there is no consensus for a change. I recommend that any replacement of the word 'Madrid' should be off the table for at least a month. This RfC might have been more effective if people would write concisely. It seems to me that the two sides did not understand each other. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This section continues from the previous section, ("Madrid"), after the two parties involved failed to come to an agreement. The issue here is, "Is 'Madrid' a good example to illustrate the lead statement "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language...Often this will be the local version."? Another editor objects (HERE) to using Caja de Muertos as the example on the basis that Madrid is a better known locale. I object (HERE) to using Madrid on the basis that, as always, examples are chosen on the basis of whether or not they -actually- illustrate the point being made. In this case, to illustrate the point being made we need an example that, first and foremost, satifies all 3 necessary and sufficient conditions stated in the lead statement and then, as a distant (though not required) second, if we have an option of using a well known case, then better yet. For reference, the 3 necessary and sufficient conditions of the lead statement are:

  1. that it (the title) be a "version" of the name of the subject (this condition implies that there are already several versions (alternative titles) to choose from),
  2. that the version should be one of various "English language" versions (this condition implies that non English language versions - such as versions based on local/regional dialects only - are not part of the possible list of title options to choose from), and
  3. that it must be the "most common" version used in English language literature (this condition implies that there are other, less common, versions also in use in the English language).

The example also has to meet the condition that it be the same version as the local version (this condition implies that it cannot be a version that "differs somewhat from the local form" (like Aragon and Christopher Columbus), and cannot be a version that is completely different from the local version (as with Germany or Mount Everest). I argue that Caja de Muertos meets all these 4 conditions while Madrid meets only one (there are NO other versions of Madrid, Madrid is NOT one of several versions in the English language, Madrid is NOT the most common version [since there are NO other versions]. It does meet the condition that the English "Madrid" and the local [Spanish] Madrid are both the same word). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

  • I disagree with your assertions that multiple versions must exist, that multiple English versions must exist, and that less-common English versions must exist (If there is only one English name, then that name is automatically the most common). I think that you're overthinking this. In general, I believe that a well-known example would be a good idea. Paris and Madrid both seem to fit the need here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not making any "assertions" as you call it; the conditions listed come from the policy. In addition, I am not sure why you chose to categorize my work as "overthinking this": Since when is analysis a forbidden practice in encyclopedia development?

I gave you my WHY i believe Madrid is not a valid example. You never gave your WHY you believe Madrid is a valid example, other than (I paraphrase) "oh well, it is a well known place." So now I ask you, how does Madrid illustrate the policy for using English in title names, other than to say "oh well, it is a well known place"? IMO, following the "oh well, it is a well known place rationale" then Madrid would also be an example of a Maya site because, "oh well, it is a well known place." Or an example of unexplored places because, "oh well, it is a well known place." Or an example of cities where Jesus preached because, "oh well it is a well known place."

In Wikipedia we chose examples on the basis of how well they illustrate the concept being presented; we don't choose examples on the basis that they are well known examples of something else and then hope that such purported examples will, in some magical way, illustrate the concept. In fact, nowhere in this entire policy is being well known a criteria for using English in the English encyclopedia titles. In case this point isn't yet clear, let me pose this illustration: Which of these two would you use to illustrate a concept about Americans: John F. Kennedy or Greg Jarvis? If you say, well JFK, of course, because, oh well, because it is a well known person, I would argue that well known has nothing to do with illustrating American astronauts. And Madrid represents a similar fallacy. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

PBS is right: WP:SILENCE is presumed to indicate consensus, especially on heavily watched pages like our policies and guidelines. If something sticks around on a guideline for multiple years, then there was a consensus for it.
PBS is also right when he says that WP:Consensus can change in this discussion. You don't need to waste time trying to prove that there never was a consensus for this particular example. It doesn't matter what the consensus was in the past. You only need to determine whether it could be improved, and whether there is a consensus now for your proposed improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The conditions are not listed in the guideline. Nowhere on the page does it say, "For this guideline to apply, then there must be multiple English versions. If there is only one English name for this thing, then you don't have to follow this guideline". You've made that up, based on a very strange reading of the sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that is Not how it works. In Wikipedia we do not go by what some independent editor wrote in an essay like your WP:SILENCE essay above. In Wikipedia we go by Policies And Guidelines. And, in determining consensus, we go by the use of reason as defined at Determining Consensus where it states "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given" and so far, the "Oh well, it is a well known place" argument has been unconvincing. In short, the silence argument is a fallacy, an Appeal to tradition fallacy, and, as such, an unacceptable argument in favor of Madrid.

In addition, I am now not sure if you are responding to provide a real answer or for some other reason. For one thing, I am not aware of any guideline being discussed here ("The conditions are 'not' listed in the guideline"); what is being discussed is a policy, not a guideline. Assuming you meant policy, let me then clarify that no one is saying the 3 conditions are listed in, and as part of, the policy; I was simply making a reference to the 3 condiditions which I listed above. Of course the policy does not say "For this guideline (sic, policy) to apply, then there must be multiple English versions. If there is only one English name for this thing, then you don't have to follow this guideline (sic)", but who is saying that it does? I am not sure what you are trying to get to with that. To keep the discussion from degenerating into misunderstandings, I suggest we stick to the facts, and the undisputed fact is that you feel Madrid is a good example to illustrate the policy and I am stating that it is not.

What I am saying is that the illustration is best made by choosing as an example a case where there are indeed more than 1 version in English; using as an example a case when only one English version is known does not illustrate the policy as well as using as an example a case when there are more than one English versions. The policy is written in such a way as to encompass those cases when there are several versions in English for an article name, but I believe -- as you do -- that most of the times there will probably be only one version in English. My point is that the 3 conditions above -- and which IMO are derivable from the policy statement -- would make Madrid a bad example to illustrate the policy for those cases when the title in English would be the same as the local version of the name. (BTW, If you think that I have had "a very strange reading of the sentence", then, perhaps, the problem is that the policy is not well stated, and would require rewriting.)

In any event, I asked you "how does Madrid illustrate the policy for using English in title names other than to say 'oh well, it is a well known place'?" but you seem to have been unable to come up with an answer. I am inclined to believe that perhaps you do not know yourself how Madrid is a good way to illustrate the "same as the local version" case of the Use English policy. Are supporting its use just for historical / Appeal to tradition reasons? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Mercy11 I think it was wrong of you to refactor WhatamIdoing's edit. Firstly because you should not be doing such things instead you should have asked WhatamIdoing on WhatamIdoing's talk page to move the comment, and secondly I think it was a tactical mistake by you because instead of explaining you reasons for your proposed alterations which is what this RfC was supposed to be about you have allowed the focus to move onto other unrelated issues, although I doubt many will read your wall of text (see be concise). Also before you start long lectures to other editors on their misunderstanding of consensus, I think you should check out the number of edits they have made and how long they have been editing Wikiepdia. -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, Mercy's wrong about the SILENCE issue. WP:Consensus says "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" at WP:EDITCONSENSUS (and links that essay for a fuller explanation). The fact that the example was present without complaint for years means that it can safely be assumed to have had consensus during all of those years.
Mercy might also want to read WP:PGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Mercy11, you write above "For one thing, I am not aware of any guideline being discussed here ("The conditions are 'not' listed in the guideline"); what is being discussed is a policy, not a guideline." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is a guideline. It one of several naming conventions that help explain and enhance the article titles policy. -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the changes proposed by Mercy11 for the reasons I gave previously. Perhaps Mercy11 would like to propose new names that meet the concerns of those who have opposed Mercy11's proposed changes. -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
And, PBS, exactly what concerns are those that -you- have? And, while you are at it, be sure you also point out how your concerns are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines - this way we will both be discussing issues within the same common framework. Fair? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Mercy, let's talk about your supposed "conditions". Here's the last:

that it must be the "most common" version used in English language literature (this condition implies that there are other, less common, versions also in use in the English language).

The subject is Heart. There is exactly one English "version" for this human organ. It is "most common" in the sense that 100% of the English sources use the term heart when talking about this piece of anatomy.

Do you believe that this guideline applies to this particular subject? Do you believe that we must WP:USEENGLISH when titling this article? Or may I perhaps USEGREEK instead, and call it kardia? Or, is it perhaps possible that this alleged "condition" is not actually a condition, and that this guideline applies even when only one English term exists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Heart would be a non-example in the context of this discussion. If you look at the examples listed (Aragon, Venice, Normandy, Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus, Germany, Mount Everest, even Madrid) they are all foreign in origin - either foreign locales or foreign born, etc. By foreign I mean, of course, that they originate in a place where English is not the common or official language. This is why I say that Heart would be a non-example: Heart is as non-foreign to this Wikipedia English encyclopedia as London and New York. The word Heart is already in English, no one is going to have a problem naming such articles; there wouldn't be a reason to write a policy, guideline, even an essay to cover cases that have no chance of being controversial - because they are already in a language that is the language of the encyclopedia. No one would argue that the name for articles about Heart, New York and London we should something else than Heart, New York and London, because they are not foreign names to begin with. When a word is already universally accepted in the context of an encyclopedia for English-language readers (such as the words New York, London, and Heart) we don't need to waste time creating gradiose guidelines to cover those cases - their titles would never be in question.

The problem only arises when you need to use foreign words in an English encyclopedia. It is for this reason that the examples given in the guideline were/are Madrid, Berlin, etc.,,, because they are all foreign names that need to exist in an English encyclopedia. However, these examples (Madrid, Berlin, etc) are foreign in origin just as Caja de Muertos, but Caja de Muertos is - unlike Madrid - a better suited example because it is one of several versions used in English to identify the same place. It is the same reason why we use titles like "Coup d'état" --instead of the other English versions of "coup", "putsch", or "overthrow"-- and "cul-de-sac" --instead of the other English versions of "dead end", "close", "no through road" or "court"-- in this English encyclopedia. We prefer these quote-unquote "English" words for article titles not because they are English words per se but because their foreign language equivalent is the most widely used version in English language literature. This is the case with Caja de Muertos also. However, this is not the case with Madrid. If you note, the "condition" that there are other, less common, versions also in use in the English language is satisfied in both of these instances (Coup d'état and cul-de-sac). This is why Madrid is a bad example to illustrate the concept of the guideline and something like Caja de Muertos is the ideal example - it is one of various versions in English language literature. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

If you're right that "no one is going to have a problem naming such articles", then why did we have exactly that problem with someone moving anatomy pages to their Latin names last month? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's not get argumentative for argument's sake. Of course there will be people who will claim that The Earth is Really Flat, but neither you nor I fall in that argumentative category. Or perhaps you do? - I would like to believe not. Let's stick to the subject at hand and not get off on a tangent. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
And talking of Latin names, why are all plant articles under Latin names not common, English names? Yes, sometimes they have more than one name, but so do lots of English name articles... and many only have one common English name. Bermicourt (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion here is about Madrid, not about plant names and WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is not the forum for your plant question. This discussion here is about how to best illustrate the guideline "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language...Often this will be the local version". No one that I know is arguing that that guideline opening statement is not correct; what is being argued is that the example being used (Madrid) is not the best to illustrate the guideline. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • These are not tangents. This guideline exists to deal with this issue, and to deal with this issue when it appears in the form of disputes by people who want "proper" Latin names instead of whatever names are used in English language sources (which are often in Latin or derived from Latin, and sometimes "misspell" the Latin). The subject of the very first paragraph is not merely geography. The subject of that first paragraph is everything, because all of our pages should be named according to the names used by English-language sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
No one here is saying that the first line of the guideline applies only to geographic names; this is why "Coup d'état" and "cul-de-sac" were mentioned. What I am saying is that results of other discussions are really not convincing arguments in this discussion - i.e., pointing to similarities in other discussions as the basis for arguments here is not a deterministic way of either approaching or discussing the issue here. Now, if you disagree with this, you may have a valid point; perhaps it is because you or Bermicourt failed to provide a link to the Latin plant names discussion. If you think that will help, I suggest you give the Latin plant name discussion link here so it can be reviewed. But as it stands so far, I see no way how refering to a Latin plant names discussion or to a human organ names discussions can help determine if Madrid or Caja de Muertos is the best way to illustrate the guideline. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Shirty! Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the name of plants exists because of the guideline called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) (WP:FLORA). Prior to 2008 the policy stated use common names not the most common name in reliable sources. Some naming conventions had been worded to use selection methods to reflect usage in reliable sources using a formalistic approach -- the best example of this was WP:NCROY for monarchy (name, numeral, country), which worked well in most cases (as that is what is usually used in reliable sources) but sometimes the wheels came off (eg Gustavus Adolphus was placed at Gustav II Adolph of Sweden). Another approach was used at WP:FLORA, which was ignore common name (which was misunderstood and interpreted differently by the botanists), and put everything at the scientific name with some limited exceptions. After the 2008 redefinition of "common name" to mean common in reliable sources instead of common in all sources, most naming conventions were changed, but the botanists resisted (see here). Eventually one of their own made some alterations to WP:FLORA. In my opinion they did not go far enough towards meeting the article title policy, which is why Bermicourt the names of some plants that ought to be in English (under common name) are in Latin. I suggest that if you want to pursue it you do so at WP:FLORA. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is "Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid" in a guideline about "naming conventions (use English)". I think the name of a capital city of a large West European county (Germany France or Spain) is a good example because it will be a familiar to most people who read this guideline. I think that Mercy11 is overcomplicating the selection and in doing so substitutes in examples that are less self explanatory. -- PBS (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

PBS, Not to discuss this wp:ad nauseam,,,,,, I understand your position but disagree with it: Madrid may be a million things - including a city that is familiar to most people as we have both widely admitted - but it is an example that does not illustrate the point of the guideline. One observation: unlike you, I am not limiting myself to West European countries,,, for all I care, make it a place in Artartica, Australia, West Europe or even the Moon so long as it illustrates the point. You seem to be stuck with West Europe, I am not sure why... this is not a popularity contest PBS, but an attempt to find an example that illustrates the point of the guideline, and popularity is secondary. IMO, none of the examples you have suggested this far illustrate the point of the Use English guideline, and Madrid, seems to me, was previously chosen with little thought. Regards, My name is Mercy11 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

This appears to have gone off on a few tangents. I've tried to parse the discussion, but to be honest, most of the proposer's elaborate reasoning is rather impenetrable. I don't see any significant issue with using Madrid as an example. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't enough to state that "I don't see any significant issue with using Madrid as an example", particularly in light of the fact that you admitted the discussion went "off on a few tangents" and was "rather impenetrable". What's needed to complete your thoughts is -why- you think Madrid should stay as -the- example; that is, what attributes does Madrid possess over other candidates that make it a defensive - and ideal - candidate for the example. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Well, no. I think it is quite enough to say that I do not see a problem with using Madrid as an example in this context. older ≠ wiser 16:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • hard to parse, but agree that Madrid is not a good example If Madrid is spelled as Madrid in english, spanish, french, german, etc, then it's not a good example. Better to choose an example that illustrates the point. The dead-man's-chest example isn't bad, but perhaps a more widely known example could be chosen? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Madrid is a bad example per Obi-Wan Kenobi. I can't understand why that was ever an example, as there's no dispute over the name, ergo there's no guideline. Maybe King Juan Carlos I, not "John Charles I"? (That gets into the swamp of nobility standards, though, since for earlier ages, the Anglicized form really is the most common, and thus people might misinterpret the guideline.) Alternative, since I'm not sure anyone has called "San Juan" St. John: Sint Eustatius? (Rather than "Saint", which is used in English sometimes?) SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Obi-Wan Kenobi is right. The page says "Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid." The antecedent for "this" in the quoted statement is "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language", making the sentence mean "Often the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language will be the local version, as with Madrid." The problem with using Madrid as the example is that "Madrid" is both the English and the Spanish name for Spain's capital city. Also, when you replace the word "this" with its antecedent, the sentence has less meaning than it should. I propose changing the sentence beginning with "Often" to read: "Often the English version and the local version will be the same, as with Madrid." Jonesey95 (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Since Madrid is written the same way in both English and Spanish, Madrid is not a good example of the point being illustrated, that "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language." Unfortunately, for Madrid there is no other version in English to consider. That is precisely why it is a bad example. Madrid is it; that's that. So by using Madrid the point that the illustration is trying to make is not obvious to the reader. So I am with you in that point of the antecedent for that little word "this".
As an example, in math you would not illustrate exponentiation by using 22 = 4 because, while (like Madrid) it is true that 22 = 4, the point you are trying to illustrated is not obvious from that math example (since the reader might mistakenly think that one only need to multiply (or, worse yet, add!) the "big 2" and the "little 2" together to get the 4). To illustrate exponents in math you would probably use something like 52 = 25, because with this example there is now no ambiguity since 5x2 will never = 25, and 5+2 will never equal 25 either, and only 5 times itself 2 times gives the result of 25. Likewise, Madrid is a bad example because it is an example that lends itself to ambiguity. So I am with you that Madrid is a bad example because it is both the English and the Spanish name for Spain's capital city. What is needed is an example that is one of several versions in English for some written-same-as-in-English foreign word, or foreign name, or foreign phrase.
Some of those examples I have already mentioned. A good example, IMO, is something that even though is written the same way in both languages (English and some another language) it doesn't have only ONE way to express it in English. (For example, Caja de Muertos - is best expressed in English as "Dead Man's Chest" island, "Coffin island", etc; cul-de-sac - is also expressed in English as "dead end", "close", "no through road", "court", etc; Coup d'état is also expressed in English as "coup", "putsch", or "overthrow", etc). There are plenty other examples that could be used: the one currently used (Madrid) happens to be one that does not possess all the qualities of a good example in this case. I agree with you 100% that when you replace the word "this" with its antecedent, the sentence has less meaning than it should, and doing so makes Madrid a miserably bad example. This is why Madrid needs to be changed to something else. Notice that San Juan (unlike Madrid) could theoretically also be called in English "St. John" or "Saint John" or maybe even "Saint Juan", etc. San Juan may not be a perfect and ideal example, but IMO it is miles ahead better than Madrid. I would propose cul-de-sac. I think most everyone knows what a cul-de-sac is, so cul-de-sac makes a good example because it is the most common expression (of several other expressions) used to express that street type in English while it is also a well-known term.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Mercy11 you wite "I think most everyone knows what a cul-de-sac is" no they do not as it seem to vary by English dialect, it can mean a "dead end" but usually in British English it means a road surrounded by houses with only one way out. A dead end can exist for all sorts of other reasons and be on a road that does not have any houses on it (for example a road that becomes a bridle path). The same is true for coup d'état while it may be a "putsch", or an "overthrow", a "putsch" or an "overthrow" may be something other than a coup d'état. The word Madrid is used in a specific clause "Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid," It would not make scene to write "Often this will be the local version, as with coup d'état".
Mercy11, Your arguments of usage for words like "San Juan" assumes that the speaker knows or cares that the word has a translatable meaning, the point is not that the word can be translated another way but that its usage us the same in both languages. You write "Since Madrid is written the same way in both English and Spanish, Madrid is not a good example of the point being illustrated," Yet it is a good example for the phrase "Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid," precisely because it is written the same way in both English and Spanish. -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You have missed my point entirely. The issue here is not that Madrid is not also the local version in Spain. If that was the issue, then what is the problem with cul-de-sac (which is the local version in France)? The issue here is that Madrid is a poorly chosen example because (while it gets some credit because it does conform to one of the attributes needed for the example, namely, that it is illustrative in the sense that it is the local version) it does not conform to all the attributes that would make it an ideal example (it is not, for example, illustrative of the most common version in the English language, since it is the one, and only, version in the English language anyway). The issue here is that, if there are better examples than Madrid, then why use Madrid? It is not enough for the example used to consistent with the phrase "Often this will be the local version" it also has to be comply with the phrase "should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". If you notice, the English wikipedia articles Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus differ somewhat from the local form, but they also comply with the phrase "should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". Likewise, the English Wikipedia articles on Germany and Mount Everest are completely different than their local forms, but they too also comply with the phrase "should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". So, imo, what is needed in place of Madrid is an example that, like Caja de Muertos, is consistent with the phrase "Often this will be the local version" but is also consistent with the phrase "should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". Caja de Muertos and the others comply with both of these guidelines, but Madrid does not.
Now, I am not going to start arguing as to whether or not almost everyone knows what cul-de-sac is or is not. Arguments relative to what portion of the world knows what a cul-de-sac is, are not relevant to understanding what the problem is with Madrid as an example in this guideline, and tangents. This is not a matter of the specific meaning of cul-de-sac in specific locations, as you are now drifting towards. This is a matter of what constitutes the best example to illustrate the guideline. And one of the characteristics that makes cul-de-sac a good example is that it forces the editor to ask "What is in cul-de-sac that makes it illustrative of the guideline?" The first thing most editors will, imo, most likely notice is that cul-de-sac is not a (native) English word. Hey! what better example to illustrate "Use English" that to use non-English words (which, in themselves, then illustrates that there are exceptions)? Further analysis may show some editors that (unlike the current Madrid) the title of the cul-de-sac article could had been some other native English word (like "dead end", "close", "no through road" or "court") yet a foreign word was preferred to a native English word. (IMO, most editors will agree that cul-de-sac is foreign to a greater sense than Madrid, since we rarely think of proper nouns - like Madrid and Cuba - as foreign but we do for nonproper nouns like cul-de-sac.)
Ultimately -- as in my example with Exponents above -- this encyclopedia and its guidelines, are not written assuming that editors know everything, since its purpose is precisely the opposite: to convey information. That said, if anyone does not know what a cul-de-sac is, then they came to right place to learn about it - be it via a cul-de-sac wikilink, the cul-de-sac article, or, yes, a cul-de-sac example in the naming conventions policies.
Whether or not cul-de-sac (or Caja de Muertos, coup d'état, etc) has different shades of meanings depending on the locale/country where it is used is irrelevant because it does not affect its ability to illustrate the guideline since the guideline does not differentiate between locales. What matters is whether or not the example used conveys the message of the illustration, and Madrid does not convey it whereas Caja de Muertos and the other examples do. The localized shades of meaning of cul-de-sac, if there are any, are irrelevant, for it does not affect the message-transfer capability of this example as compared to Madrid. (And, hey, if cul-de-sac bothers you, then use Caja de Muertos which I believe in Britain also refers to the Caribbean island and not to some roadway surrounded or not by houses.) Madrid does a poor job at transmitting the message of the guideline (The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language) for the reasons that I and others have already expressed above.
The primary characteristic of any example is that it illustrates a point. Madrid -does- illustrate the point, but it does so in too broad and unprecise fashion for it fails to be representative of all of the elements in the group being illustrated by the guideline. Madrid fails to fully shed light on the total meaning, significance, implication and reprecussions of the guideline. But cul-de-sac, Caja de Muertos and the others, on the other hand, are examples that do transmit the full message of the guideline because they are not native English words, because they are the same as the local versions, and because they are the version of the name of the subject which is most common to the English language speakers.
What does this guideline really say to us? What this guideline really says to me is,

"Hey! it is OK to think outside the box when creating article titles. You don't have to limit yourself to names that are native to the English language. So, hey!, go ahead and use non-English names like Madrid!,,,,and, no, it doesn't matter that the name happens to be identical to the local name; hey, in some cases the name will be the local version! But wait! hey hey hey!!! it gets even better yet, don't stop at names that are just also the same as the local version, go ahead and use titles like cul-de-sac, San Juan, Caja de Muertos, Isla de la Juventud, and coup d'état, which, in addition to being the local versions, are not even native to the English language, and go ahead and use them because the guideline is not that the titles must be in English per se, but that they must be the version of the name that is most common in the English language."

I believe this is why cul-de-sac, San Juan, Caja de Muertos, Isla de la Juventud, and coup d'état, are used in this encyclopedia: they are the local versions AND they are the most common names in English AND they are the most common (of various) versions available in English. The reverse of this would be: How come we are using cul-de-sac, San Juan, Caja de Muertos, Isla de la Juventud, and coup d'état in this English encyclopedia over their other native English versions? And the answer is a resounding "Because they are the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, they are easy to find, easy to compare information with other sources, and they are also the local version."
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Yes; Madrid is a good example because we show readers the local version, not the English version.
Wait, what? bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
We also show the readers the local version with cul-de-sac, San Juan, Caja de Muertos, Isla de la Juventud, and coup d'état. These are not just "the local version, not just the English version" as you are cheering for, but also the "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" which is necessary per the guideline. So what is the problem with any of these other titles as examples? In other words, What in the guideline indicates that cul-de-sac, San Juan, Caja de Muertos, Isla de la Juventud, or coup d'état should NOT be used as article titles? Or more precisely yet, Which guideline, then, justifies the use of those other names for the existing titles? I am suggesting that these other titles are used in this English encyclopedia because they are justified by precisely this guideline via the words "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language...Often this will be the local version". Perhaps you are being so distracted by the "Often this will be the local version" clause that you lost track of the "should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" core part of the guideline. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this messsage.
The purpose of this guideline is to say that we use the English names for people, places, and things. In this sentence, the purpose is to say that we use the English name even if the English name happens to match some non-English name(s). Madrid is an example of a place whose non-English name happens to match the English name. Later in the guideline, we explain that we use the English name even when it doesn't happen to match some non-English name(s). We could give Moscow/Москва/Moskva or any number of other places as examples of this. But what we need here is a place that has the same name (including the same spelling) in English and in whatever other language(s) are most relevant. Madrid meets the necessary requirements to make this point: The city is called Madrid in English-language sources and in Spanish-language sources. That's all we need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No, that is not "all we need." It is not that easy. For one thing, if the purpose of the guideline was only "to say that we use the English names for people, places, and things", then why do we have cul-de-sac, San Juan, Caja de Muertos, Isla de la Juventud, and coup d'état, when these are not English names? These are not English names, but names and words borrowed into English from other languages. Secondly, Madrid is a bad example because -by definition- a good example should serve to illustrate a point. A good example should be a catalyst that helps an editor understand a guideline. It should be agent for the transmission of a message. Madrid is an example alright, but it is not the best example. So, no, that is not "all we need". In the process of improving, enhancing, and expanding an encyclopedia, we need examples that are as good and as robust as possible. If there are better examples than Madrid, then we should use them instead. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Yes, it is all we need. This sentence, and this example, serves to illustrate a single point.
This bit about needing an example that has multiple English-language names baffles me. You have actually asserted that since 100% of English-languages—one hundred percent, each and every single one of them—uses "Madrid", that "Madrid" is somehow magically not "the most common". Well, then what the heck actually is the most common name for that particular city, if it's somehow not the name used 100% of the time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a poor illustration as it doesn't illustrate the point - that given a choice, one should prefer the most common name. If one doesn't have a choice, there isn't a choice to be made! Read the language again: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid." You are correct that Madrid is trivially the "most common", but so is "Paris", and "Paris" wouldn't be a very good example here for the same reason. What we need to illustrate this example is a word where the "local-language" version is the most common in English usage as well, whereas a (perhaps more clunky) ENGLISH translation is less common. Mercy11 came up with some examples, they weren't liked, so let's just come up with some new ones. For example, Marseille not Marseilles would be one - Marseille has been the french version for a while, while in English it USED to be called Marseilles, but now it is called Marseille (and the article is titled as such).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Madrid" a good example of "Naming conventions (use English)" ? - arbitrary break

@Mercy11 you wrote above "PBS, Not to discuss this wp:ad nauseam,,,,,, I understand your position but disagree with it" (21 June 2013). You started an RfC over a month ago. The bot has now removed the RfC template. You clearly did not establish a consensus for the change you wanted to make. You are wasting everyone's time continuing this discussion. I am going to ask at ANI that someone closes this discussion. -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we at least try to come up with a slightly different example before this closes? I agree it has gone on too long, but the point remains, Madrid doesn't illustrate the point we're trying to make in that sentence, while a different example such as the one I provided above will. The example should be of the form "X not Y" ideally.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The sentence in question is: Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid.
The point—note, please, the singular "point"—is that sometimes the "English" name is also the "non-English" name.
For example: The "English" name of the capital of Spain is spelled M-a-d-r-i-d, and the "Spanish" name of the capital of Spain is also spelled M-a-d-r-i-d. They are the same word. We therefore put the article at Madrid. When we put the article at Madrid, we are using the English name. It just so happens that the Spanish name is also Madrid, but we did not put the article at Madrid because we wanted to use the Spanish name; we put the article there because we wanted to use the English name.
That is the point we are making here. Why do you believe that this example does not make this point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The POINT we are making is that we use the most common name, as used in the English language. Sometimes, this intersects with the local name, and sometimes it doesn't. Yes, Madrid is trivially the most common - note the word TRIVIALLY. It means, it's a silly example. Marseille and Marseilles is a much better one IMHO, as we have a less-common version that is sometimes used in older English sources, but we title it at Marseille which also happens to be the French version (but which is also the most common in English, I suppose). Madrid, Paris, these are trivial examples, and they don't illustrate "most common" because THERE IS NO CHOICE of a less-common alternative.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No. The point in this sentence is that we are using the English name instead of a non-English name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Your refusal to get the point is tiresome. Why are you so *for* Madrid? What is so great about it? Why would Often this will be the local version, as with Marseille (vs Marseilles) not be more illustrative of "more common"? I hope you realize that the sentence "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources" has an influence on all sentences that come after - including this one. It's the "most common" that we're trying to illustrate with ALL of these examples, even if the words "most common" don't appear in the particular sentence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Madrid is "the most common" English name for that city. The fact that Madrid is "the most common" English name for that city, and has been for centuries, is absolutely undeniable.
Using an example that has only one available form makes the point more strongly. A simple example avoids muddying the waters. If we use a simple example, there will never be any challenges by people saying "Well, my Google search shows that the other search is more common". As a result, we will be able to focus attention on the actual point of this particular sentence, which is essentially, "Yes, we know that Madrid is the Spanish name for that city, but that is not an excuse for saying that some other city ought to use a non-English name. The only reason that article title is at Madrid is because that's the English name, not because it's the name preferred by the people who live there." An example that can be disputed on irrelevant grounds is not going to be as useful as one that is simple and clear and strictly related to this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian names

I should be grateful for a clarification of the guidelines as regards Russian names in the Cyrillic alphabet.

WP:ENG states 'The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical.' There is a need to be clear here about 'native spelling'. In Russian Cyrillic orthography, there is no usage, in ordinary circumstances, of stress marks (e.g. и́, я́, á, é, etc.) There is one special circumstance where these marks are used, that is, (frequently) in the first introduction of a name in an article in a work of reference. This usage has been carried forward into Russia Wikipedia where, for example, the article on Lenin is titled 'Ленин, Владимир Ильич' (transcribes Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich), and where its first line begins 'Влади́мир Ильи́ч Улья́нов (псевдоним Ле́нин) (transcribes/translates Vladímir Ilyích Ulyánov, (pseudonym Lénin)). These accents are not used for Lenin's names (or any other names) in the title or during the course of the article on Russian Wikipedia (and the same is true, pari passu, for other articles in Rusian Wikipedia). Russian speakers and readers understand this convention. I do not believe however that on this basis the spelling with stress marks can be construed as the 'native spelling'.

A number (but by no means all) of articles in English Wikipedia on Rusian people also give these stress marks in their transliteration. One case is currently under discussion here. I had removed the accents in the article Alexander Serov. Amongst the objections to this was that IPA renditions of names are at least as obscure as Cyrillic renditions. I reprint here my most recent contribution to this discussion, which refers also to earlier discusions on this matter:

Not without reluctance, I set out again the issues which the [previous] discussion did not deal with. There are two issues confused here: 'correct spelling' and stress indicators. No one has asserted that the use of stress indicators in Russian text is a standard part of Russian orthography. And in fact they do not occur in Russian printed texts, in any handwriting with which I am acquainted, [...] or in Russian Wikipedia - except in the lead line of articles of Russian WP (as in some Russian works of reference), where it is a standard convention to indicate stress with accents. This practice (which is not a convention in English Wikipedia or works of reference) has been carried over by some editors into English Wikipedia.

I do not know the statistics of acquaintance with IPA and/or Cyrillic amongst English Wikipedia readers - and nor, I suspect, does anyone else. (Although I would point out that the contributors to the discussion mentioned by Ezhiki and Azylber were all Russian readers, and therefore perhaps not fully representative of English Wikipedia readership). I certainly accept that IPA is not a very trasparent mode of representing stress for English readers. I agree that - for example - it would be very helpful to include in the lead line for Serov (and for others) something like: 'stressed: Alexánder Nikoláyevich Seróv'.

What in my submission is not helpful is to include in the lead line in English Wikipedia is the formulation 'Алекса́ндр Никола́евич Серо́в', because:

  • 1) It transgresses WP:EN, which clearly states that 'The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses'. And the use of stress accents is not part of the 'native spelling'. The familiarity of Cyrillic readers with the use of stress-marks does not therefore override WP:EN. English Wikipedia should be written with the interests of English readers as a priority.
  • 2) It consequently potentially misleads non-Cyrillic readers into believing that stress marks are part of the native spelling.

I would be grateful to see some attempt to address these specific issues within the context of agreed and fundamental Wikipedia standards, including WP:EN and Wikipedia:Russian_Romanization and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) (which do not, by the way, appear to sanction the use of stress marks). As mentioned above, there is no present uniformity on this issue in English Wikipedia - for example, Lenin and Stalin don't have stress-accented transcriptions, Mikhail Lomonosov and Peter the Great do.

If it is accepted that the use of stress accents is not 'native spelling' (which I interpret as being everyday native spelling, rather than technical spelling as used in specified locations in works of reference), then it would be advisable, in all such articles where stress accents are used, to remove them but to add a stressed version of the Latin spelling for guidance. If it is believed (against the evidence in my submission) that the stressed spelling is 'native', then all unstressed articles should be edited up to include the stresses. The latter solution however would only, I believe, spread misinformation amongst non-Cyrillic readers. Thank you, --Smerus (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Previous discussions on this are available at WT:RUSSIA#Using accent marks to indicate stress (where the consensus was to include stress marks regardless of whether IPA transcription is also available) and User_talk:Ymblanter#Серов.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 11, 2013; 13:54 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference to the earlier discussion, which did not take into account WP:EN. The discussion at User_talk:Ymblanter#Серов is already mentioned in my inital submission here.--Smerus (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Smerus, this has nothing to do with WP:EN, I'm sorry but you are on the wrong page. WP:EN refers to the title and the lead "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." and they are. End of WP:EN's relevance. As for the formatting of the cyrillic box, it should be formatted according to usual Russian encyclopaedic practice, per WT:RUSSIA#Using accent marks to indicate stress. As most articles I (though I've been lazy with some I've created). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iio, thanks for this contribution. But you are quite wrong. This is exactly the right page, and it is not the end of WP:EN's relevance. You conveniently for yourself omit the reference in WP:EN that 'The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses'. You write as one who is partial (as you admit) to the Russian encylopaedic practice. You don't answer any of the issues I have raised above as to why it should be assumed that, in an English work of reference, the traditions of Russian encyclopaedic practice should prima facie be assumed to be the 'native spelling'. You don't even address the question of whether an accented version of the name in Latin script might prove more useful to the English WP reader than the accented version of the name in Cyrillic - which is a courtesy you might well extend to English WP readers in preference to a fetishistic attachment to practices of which 95% of them (I hazard a guess) are unaware. You don't address the question of whether providing an accented Cyrillic version risks misleading English WP readers as to standard Russian orthogrpahic practices. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but it would also be nice to get the opinions of English WP users, who are not wedded to Russian encyclopaedic practices, as to the meaning and intention of the phrase 'native spelling', which is the nub of my enquiry. Few of such folk would have been aware of, and I think none contributed to, WT:RUSSIA#Using accent marks to indicate stress. They might also have opinions on this matter, and those opinions might not (or indeed might) agree with yours. I don't see that, in any way, a conclusion reached in WT:RUSSIA can somehow automatically preempt an interpretation of WP:EN. Let's see what people say. --Smerus (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, I simply don't understand your grievances. You sound as if you believe that the inclusion of stress marks somehow invalidates the native spelling, but it does not. Stress or no stress, the original spelling is still there. Including stress (in a way that's standard in dictionaries and other reference works) provides additional guidance to those who can read Russian (native and non-native speakers alike) but cannot read IPA. Non-speakers are not affected in any practical way because they have no use for Russian spelling, regardless of whether it's stressed or not. Both native and non-native speakers of Russian have made it quite clear that they find the inclusion of the stress marks helpful, and that's in addition to IPA. Omitting the stress would be a disservice to that audience, while benefiting pretty much no one else (except those theoretical non-speakers who for some unimaginable reason think it's a good idea to copy a spelling in a language they cannot read). A conclusion reached at WT:RUSSIA represents the consensus of the users who cared enough to have their opinions on this matter heard; you interpretation of this guideline, on the other hand, is simply your personal opinion. And while you are fully entitled to your opinion, note how it is not shared by anyone else, neither on WT:RUSSIA nor, so far, here (but I have no problem with waiting to hear what previously uninvolved editors might say—any volunteers out there?).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 12, 2013; 13:29 (UTC)


Please understand, I have no 'grievance', I am the same smiling fellow as always. The root concern I have can be boiled down as follows: looking at the article on (say) Mikhail Lomonosov, the non-Cyrillic reader might go away with the impression that his name is normally spelt in Russian as Михаи́л Васи́льевич Ломоно́сов - whereas you and I both know that it is normally spelt (outside of the first line of a Russian work of reference) Михаил Васильевич Ломоносов. The vowels with stress marks on them aren't even part of the Russian keyboard, as you will also know. By presenting these stressed versions to the Cyrilically ignorant as standard spellings (and they are the only Cyrillic spellings of these words that readers will see in the English Wikipedia articles that use them), Wikipedia is providing misinformation, which is expressly against its objectives. If you want to service non-Cyrillic readers and Cyrillic readers alike by providing pronunciation stresses - and you certainly should wish that - and you don't like IPA - (and I dont like it either)- then a stressed version of the Latin alphabet transcription should be supplied - and I'm 100% in favour of that. I am still waiting for a rationale of why the accented spelling should be construed as the 'native spelling' required by WP:EN. Strangely, no one has yet come up with that. I notice by the way that Russian Wikipedia doesn't make the same mistake - the article Черчилль, Уинстон, gives in its first line 'Сэр Уи́нстон Леона́рд Спе́нсер-Че́рчилль (англ. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill) - not misrepresenting the English, to the confusion of Russian readers, as Sir Wínston Léonard etc.... Всё. --Smerus (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your root concern, but I am just not seeing it as a problem. Any reader who is at all familiar with Russian will recognize the stress marks for what they are (they are introduced in the first few lessons of any Russian-as-a-second-language course, and native speakers are of course quite familiar with them as well), and copying the text in a language one cannot read is just foolish. Even without stress marks, it's not uncommon to see folks who copy a word in, say, genitive, and use it as if it's nominative. We can do no more about that than we can do about same people copying words with stress marks. In any case, stressed spellings are not "misinformation" at all; they are just a sort of metadata in addition to the unstressed native spelling, and a commonly used tool in Russian (unlike your improbable example of the English spelling of "Chúrchill"). As far as practical implications go, there's a lot more potential for confusion if you italicize Russian than if you include stress marks!
But it seems we start to repeat ourselves. Let's see what others think before this thread grows to a point where its length starts scaring people away :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 12, 2013; 16:15 (UTC)
Thank you so much for these comments, which provide I think a clinching argument for my concerns. Of course users of Russian WP , who, thanks to Russian encyclopaedic protocols, already have a stressed version of Churchill's name in an alphabet which they can read, do not need "Chúrchill". The idea is absurd. By the same token, readers of English WP do not need a stressed version of Serov, or Lomonosov, or anyone else, in an alphabet which they cannot read; they deserve a version in an alphabet that they can read. Moreover, as they will not be fmailiar with Russian encyclopaedic protocols, they shouldn't be purveyed implicitly with the idea that the stressed Russian spelling is the everyday one. See also below. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Smerus, this page is only a guideline - "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses" cannot cover 101 variations of how to treat Chinese (simplified or fanti?), Arabic (should we write the vowel points?), Russian (should we show the stress?), Hindustani (write in Devanagari or Urdu?), these are details established by the editors who make the articles. Please take it up where the previous discussion is if you disagree with previous discussion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I worry a bit about your phraseology ' only a guideline '. We all conform responsibly as far as possible to these guidelines because as responsible WP editors we seek to act in good faith. Where the guidelines need interpretation, it may be necessary to clarify them so as not to disturb the GF interactions of editors. So it seems to be not inappropriate to raise the issue here, though of course I am quite happy to raise it again at WT:RUSSIA. I am not seeking to set these two fora against each other, asserting the superiority (or inferiority) of one over the other. But the guidelines of each should be mutually consistent. See also my comment immediately above. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with an article

I need help with an article. One user wants to move FC Real Pharm Ovidiopol to FC Real Pharma Ovidiopol. They're listing the rationale reasoning as "this is what the title is in other language and other Wikipedias". My response to that was that the official logo is listed in English as Pharm rather than Pharma, and per naming conventions we go by the official English title. The other issue is that the page was moved and another user moved it back, making this maintenance that would be controversial because another user has objected to it. I requested that he open up a move discussion on the article's talk page, to which he has repeatedly refused. I want someone else to come into this and provide a third opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Another user has no objections. [1] Alex (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have changed the pipelink so that "reliable sources" links to WP:Reliable sources not a double link to WP:Verifiability, which is now pipelinked only under "verify", not twice under both "verify" and also duplicate under "reliable sources". In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted the change. The proposed change is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Diacritics in Latin alphabet European names titles -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

diacritics flamefest

I've recently had a look at Talk:Ana Ivanovic and it occurs to me it's been over two years since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, and a year since User talk:MakeSense64/Tennis names#RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?. WP:DIACRITICS still has a strict explicit reference to the verifiability policy, which doesn't really resolve the matter, but does provide a crutch for the "tennis names" clique to engage in numerous title and content disputes. I really don't want to have to go around wasting my time on things like this, but at this point this strange phenomenon doesn't seem to be receding.

The organic consensus throughout the English Wikipedia, with the notable exception of some of the tennis player biographies, has continued to be that we don't pretend that the mass stripping of diacritics in reliable sources talking about people is an actual statement of fact, but of style.

The 2011 Diacritics RfC was badly phrased - it made a suggestion regarding proper nouns while spelling "Roman script" in lowercase in the very first sentence :) and then went into a lot of detail without concentrating on what's important. The suggestion should simply be to stick to the true spirit of the use English guideline, meaning use anglicized foreign names where they exist. As opposed to pretending that arbitrary technicalities found in English sources that don't care as much about spelling as an encyclopedia - are somehow a matter of verifiability and not of source style (or lack thereof).

How do we go about this, then? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joy, it's only 1 article, poorly and noisily attended and closed by a non-admin. A better advertised RM may be all that is needed. And then we can finally close down the TENNISNAME disruption. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. That's what the guidelines are for, to make an implicit consensus explicit so we don't have to rehash everything all the time all over the place. The guideline in this case is flawed because it's short-sighted - it should be amended to account for what's been going on. It shouldn't be a stick to beat people with, it should be a clear indicator of site-wide consensus. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW it looks like the summer (in the northern hemisphere at least) is a bad time to have a lively debate on this matter :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joy, yes I agree. Although I don't think there will be much debate, this should be WP:SNOW. 1st week of October? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
To this day, people advocating dumbing down Wikipedia have steadfastly ignored my pleas to address the issue of why they ignore Jelena Janković but obstruct Ana Ivanović by stripping the latter to Ana Ivanovic. The two are alike culturally and in terms of "verifiable English-language sources", isomorphic, that is, indistinguishable with respect to usage of "ć". The existence of this ad hoc inequity is only that, inequity of treatment born of disingenuous, force-conducted editing, something along the lines, "let's get away with murder on this one, so maybe later via slippery slope, we can win out". This is a travesty of knowledge, a travesty of writing an encyclopedia, and a travesty of the Wikipedia process. --Mareklug talk 00:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Marek I pinged you because your diffs were brought up, but don't discuss here - it is not safe. Another editor will put in another RM to restore the article sooner rather than later, it just needs wider notification. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Mareklug, I chuckled at your murder + slippery slope sentence, but let's not do that much forum talk here. Same goes for In ictu oculi - I've no idea what you mean by it not being safe to discuss here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading WP:DIACRITICS guidance

I think the opening line of WP:DIACRITICS is misleading. It currently says:

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged;

Wouldn't it be more correct to say the following?

There is no consensus on whether the use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is to be encouraged nor discouraged;

I mean, people seem to be constantly encouraging/supporting and/or discouraging/opposing the use of diacritics, especially in article titles.

I know diacritics are very controversial, so I'm asking for feedback before I (or anyone else) makes this change. But my proposed change seems to me to be obviously true. --B2C 06:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

B2C I think it would be more correct to say "There is broad consensus on the use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles, but there are four or five editors who hang out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) who are opposed to the broad consensus" - one of those editors is yourself. And yet I'm wondering what makes you a "title expert" (the phrase you have yourself used) or why your view should be given any weight? ...sorry if that sounds challenging, but it is challenging. Why should someone whose view is not in line with the article reality, in fact only in line with 1 article, be given weight in a discussion on that view? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that it is an appropriate change because I for one think we should follow usage in reliable English language sources, your change seems to imply that an editor either thinks/knows that diacritics are appropriate or inappropriate rather than following usage in sources. -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • And here again is the same problem the phrase "usage in reliable English language sources" - which PBS interprets as "sources which are reliable about dates, facts, history, but do not have to be reliable for spelling foreign names", and which I (and I believe almost every other editor) interprets as defined by WP:Identifying reliable sources as "reliable for the statement being made." These two understandings of what is reliable for spelling e.g. French names
  • interpretation 1 (PBS' view) = books which do not contain French accents
  • interpretation 2 (my own view) = books which do contain French accents
Evidently these two interpretations are not the same interpretation of "reliable sources". In ictu oculi (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Iio you are misrepresenting my point of view, I am neither for or against accent marks on article titles. I am in favour of surveying reliable English language sources to see what is the usage in English language sources and following that usage, so please stop implying that I am or am not in favour of one particular interpretation. You write "sources which are reliable about dates, facts, history, but do not have to be reliable for spelling foreign names" how have you drawn the conclusion that the usage in such reliable sources are or are not reliable for spelling foreign names in English? As I understand what you write, your position is that you will only accept a source as reliable for the spelling of a name if it conforms to what you think is the "correct". If so why bother to survey reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, is the following: Let us assume Jimbo Wales is considered a reliable source and in his book/journal he published It's not discourteous to talk about Munich rather than Muenchen in the context of topnym vs exonym and he is discussing Goethe's place of death being Weimar in some other part of his book. Jimbo could be considered an expert in Peerage of the United Kingdom and similar historical fields across Europe, but can he be considered a RS on the spelling of Goethe? It is a fact, supported by other sources, that the toponym for Munich is München and not Muenchen, which renders the publication typographicaly unreliable. I could not rely on Goethe not being Göthe, only on his place of death. On the other had Jimbo written München in the first instance and Goethe in the other I can rely on Goethe being typographically correct. Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you went in the right direction there, but with the wrong examples - the diacritics discussion isn't on whether to use anglicizations or not, it's on whether the act of stripping diacritics from foreign names constitutes actual anglicization. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean if Dörte translates into Dorothy or Dorte? The first is an anglicization, the second a typographical issue. Agathoclea (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not that simple. Is hotel an English word or a French word (hôtel) with the circumflex stripped off? By following usage in reliable English language sources we do not have to answer that question (or even investigate where the word originates), or decide what "correct" usage ought to be. For example there is an article about an English estate called The Vache on Wikipedia. Captain Cook named an island after it. For those who do not know they might well think that the island's name means it was originally French and want to give a translation of Cow Island which in this case would be misleading. -- PBS (talk)
see Hôtel particulier#Examples to see how our common practice on the naming of these hotels is. As far as Cow Island is concerned, being a very good example. We would not apply WP:UE to mean we have to translate names neither does it mean we have to strip the circumflex of French hotels. Neither do we have to add it to hotels from Sussex. Agathoclea (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You are missing my point. I was not using hotel in a name but in an example of what you call "anglicization" to show it is not just "a typographical issue". As to your example of Hôtel particulier#Examples, like all names of objects and people Wikiepdia should follow the usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk)
Actually, today it's very simple - hotel is an English word, you can find it in any English dictionary and most English speakers know what it means and how to pronounce it natively. On the other hand, Ivanović is not an English word, and the reliable English sources on "Ivanović" are works about onomastics or genealogy that cover foreign surnames. Works about tennis, chess, politics or whatever else people named that way happen to be involved in - are reliable sources about those people's respective activities, not about the surnames they happen to carry, or about an encyclopedia's writing style. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
How do most English speakers pronounce Moscow, Warwick, Worcester or Wagner? "and the reliable English sources on "Ivanović" are works about onomastics or genealogy" may be reliable sources for that word, but they are not reliable sources for the name by which a person is called any more than a reliable English sources on the derivation of "Anthony" help in deciding on whether the article Tony Blair should have Anthony or Tony in the title, that is done by looking at reliable sources about that individual and seeing what is used in those reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
So you agree with me then? :) A difference between Anthony and Tony is obvious in spelling and pronunciation, just like the difference between an anglicization (Moscow) and a foreign word (Москва). When English sports commentators routinely pronounce the -ić, it's clear that they're not inventing a new English word "Ivanovic", but instead pronouncing a foreign word "Ivanović". They're not pretending to anglicize it, so neither should an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Agathoclea, Joy, thanks for your comments. Obviously time is wasted responding to deliberate distraction from editors such as who introduce "Mick" Jagger into a discussion about typographical limitations - and those who keep asserting that basic-ASCII sources are reliable for names with non-basic ASCII. It's evident that 2 or 3 of the most active local inhabitants of this page are in denial of article title reality and the consensus of 1000s of editors editing in full European Latin alphabet typography, and attempts to reason will not get anywhere, which leaves 2 options - either ignore the disruptive state of this page, as the editing community is largely doing, or bring in a large scale RfC notifying every affected project and overrule the local consensus issue here with a broader community input. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy I think you misunderstood my point is there a cow in Moscow? It seems that in some English dialects there is whist in others there is not. As to Iio's point I do not know what ASCII has to do with anything, unless you are attempting to second guess the style used in different publications and pretending that the only reason a publication might not use accent marks is because of technical limitations and not a question of style. For example the Economist has a published style guide (so their style is known) that only recommends using accent marks for some languages and not for others where does that sit in your simple ASCII based world? The nice thing about following the usage in reliable English language sources is that one does not have to research further than usage it follow the principle of least astonishment. For example if one was to only use the Economist for all the names that they use, one would end up with the usage of accent marks in their style guide without ever reading it. By doing the same thing over dozens of reliable publications, the style of article title will reflect English language usage. PBS (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS you bring in the Economist MOS, as a former contributor and editor to Economist publications I can tell you that having a MOS is a very good thing and Economist MOS is a good one for time-deadline publications. However, because that is what en.wp's editors want en.wp should have an en.wp MOS which would be like WP:FRMOS, that we completely spell correctly and fully all European Latin alphabets. And then the diacritics war (caused entirely by 4 or 5 disruptive editors clinging on to 2 or 3 articles) would be over.
Instead of which you're again arguing for an unstable MOS as you advanced when arguing that Frédéric Vitoux (writer) could be written in full font because writers appear in hardback books, while Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) should be written in basic-ASCII because tennis players appear in shoddy sports websites. This is massively unstable and disruptive and these continuing attempts to turn every name on en.wp into an endless "count the hardback vs html sources game" need to end. You, and 1 or 2 others, but mainly yourself, have in my view wasted thousands of bytes of what could have been productive editor time with this disruption and your attempts - as an editor out of line with editor/article reality - to WP:OWN this guideline need to be brought to a clean permanent end. However I agree with Joy that it is better to wait for colder weather to get the maximum participation in a full RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"hardback books" "shoddy sports websites" that is a trick of rhetoric of a type you use quite often. Do you do it on purpose or are you unaware that you do it? Wikipedia titles should rely on what appears in reliable English language sources (and if you think that a site is a non reliable -- such as a "shoddy sports website" -- then that should be part of the debate, but the debate ought to revolve around usage in reliable English language sources rather than what editors think is "correct". If that mean that some articles have a names such as "Fred Vitoux (dab extension)" or "Frederic Vitoux (dab extension)" or "Fred Vitoux (dab extension)" or to take another example Tony Blair and Anthony Blair (criminal) this is an issue that should be source driven and not something where Wikipedia editors impose the "correct" title.
Iio for the record over the last two years how many RMs have you initiated to place an article at the "correct" spelling of a name with modified letters compared to the number I have initiated? I suspect you have initiated dozens (or is it 100s?). With the exception of Encyclopædia Britannica (over removing æ under WP:TITLETM) can you name one other that I have initiated? Similarly how many talk page debates have you expressed an opinion on that now reside at a name with one or more accent marks compared to me? I suspect the ratio is probably a lot greater than 10 to one. So I think it is hypocritical you you to accuse me of "what could have been productive editor time with this disruption", but I suppose you consider all your comments to be justified as productive because like an old time profit you think you know what is "correct". -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS,
First, no, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to note that without the current state of WP:DIACRITICS 100s if not 1000s of editor hours could have been saved. In reality the time is probably less because only a tiny minority of Tennis and Hockey editors have ever followed the guideline here. But your question: How many RMs have the conflict between the current state of the guideline here and the rest of the encyclopedia made necessary? As a percentage of en.wp's BLP article stock? I would estimate 0.0001%. And these were the 0.0001% necessitated by the disruptive and unstable guideline a local consensus of editors - including most vocally yourself - have inserted into this page.
Second, now a question for you:
Seeing as you introduce hypocrisy as a subject, can I ask do you think it's hypocritical of yourself to praise Economist MOS Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words (the same as WP:FRMOS) but then fight against, for French, Economist MOS - as http://www.economist.com/style-guide/accents would treat Frédéric Vitoux (writer) and Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) consistently, but you support editors having to conduct Google counts to see if the subject appears in high-MOS academic books or low-MOS sports sources.
Do you support Economist MOS Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Iio I think you are playing tricks with rhetoric again by asking for a simple yes or no answer ("Answer yes or no. Do you still beat you wife?") I have neither come to bury the Economist style guide or to praise it, and I have already answered that question above, here are the same two sentences quoted for ease of reference: "For example if one was to only use the Economist for all the names that they use, one would end up with the usage of accent marks in their style guide without ever reading it. By doing the same thing over dozens of reliable publications, the style of article title will reflect English language usage". -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS,
Please answer a straight question: Do you support Economist MOS Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words - Yes or No?'
In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I will gladly answer a strait question with yes or no, but your question is not strait, because it is formulated like the question "Do you still beat you wife?". So please look at my previous sand if anything is not clear please for clarification on that specific point. -- PBS (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS
This is the answer I would expect from you. You are asked 'Do you support Economist MOS?' and your answer is that to ask someone if they support Economist MOS is to ask someone if they are still beating their wife.
In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the specific ambiguity, the fact is that there exists at least one English pronunciation of that English word. It's not a question about how to pronounce Moskva + whatever diacritics one can tack on to that, it's a question of how to pronounce Moscow.
Regarding second-guessing style guides, that's actually a great point - the existence of such guides shows it is a matter of style, not of fact. Therefore, invoking the verifiability policy to enforce matters of style is meaningless.
As for reflecting English usage, that link from the old RfC is still valid: User:Prolog/Diacritical marks#External guides. I think the sheer variety there, completely disregarding any specifics, is proof enough that this is not a matter that can be trivially resolved by saying "look, the preponderance of English sources does X, so we should just do X, too". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
How do you pronounce Moscow personally there is no cow in my pronunciation of the word? "it is a matter of style, not of fact" which means there is no "correct" spelling and we should follow the spelling that is commonly used in reliable English language sources (principle of least astonishment). Looking at what reliable sources say is precisely what is done for WP:UNDUE and is fundemental to both WP:V and WP:NOR as well as WP:AT, so why not follow the same principle for whether or not to use modified letters in words? -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea why it matters, but I'd say mos-cow. I'm not a native speaker, but I'm aware of the existence of the English word for the city's name.
Ah I see how American of you :-) I do not pronounce cow in Moscow, which is (also) common in many other English dialects. For many words the pronunciation in different English dialects differ enough that unless one can place the word in context or know other common pronunciations the word is incomprehensible (Take for example the word buoy -- most Americans would assume that a Brit was talking about a boy; or another example: if a Brit asks for Worcester sauce in the US (s)he will usually be told that there is not such thing unless (s)he emphasises "cester" in the word -- not something that is done in Britain or Ireland). BTW it does not have to be between dialects: the pronunciation of Shrewsbury being a well known example. This looseness in English over the name of things is a minor problem but also a major asset as it allows the language to adapt. So to use your example "Ivanović" with or with out an accent mark is not going to allow a person to decide how the word is pronounced in an English dialect, instead they will synthesise a pronunciation based on how others pronounce it and/or their experience with the pronunciation other similar words. PBS (talk)
The principle of least astonishment is a rule in ergonomics and software design, not necessarily a good overarching rule for how to build an encyclopedia, even one operating in software. In particular, the use of hypertext makes it moot because whatever may be said to astonish a reader is usually explicable after a single click, and secondly the scope of an encyclopedia isn't narrow, it's as broad as it can be, so with so many unknowns being described, being astonished could easily be argued to be a part of the reader experience. People don't read an encyclopedia in order to remain within the confines of their pre-existing experience - on the contrary, they do it in order to expand their knowledge and broaden their experiences. I agree that it's counter-productive to make the interface completely strange, which is why transliteration is used, but that's for different alphabets, not Latin-derived ones. If a reader knows one Latin alphabet, others are sufficiently recognizable to them that they don't have to be entirely transliterated. That's why we call a ć a "c with an acute", and not a Tintin or whatever :)
In any case, the article title policy already lays out its own rules: article titles must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. Using foreign words to describe foreign people is logical under those rules. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
How is "Using foreign words to describe foreign people is logical under" "recognizable, natural"? Surly the most recognizable, natural name and spelling for the majority of readers will be those used in reliable English language sources? You performed this exercise higher up this page when you wrote "Actually, today it's very simple - hotel is an English word, you can find it in any English dictionary". -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In the case of a person called Ivanović, the reliable English language sources that render the name Ivanovic still clearly agree that the name to be used is that one - they don't say it should be Ivanovich, or Eyevanovitch, or Johnson, or whatever. There is no English word (such as an anglicization) to be used in place of Ivanović or Ivanovic, so the foreign word is used, whatever the character set. It is not a particularly natural English title by virtue of not being an English word in the first place. After we've established that, a foreign Latin-alphabet word is as recognizable in its foreign Latin form as it is in its foreign Latin form without any diacritics. Taking the other criteria in mind, precision and consistency, there remains no particularly important reason to eschew the diacritics. And, again, "hotel" is an English word where the English speakers pronounce the "h" (that is, hoe-tell), unlike the French speakers. I don't really understand where you expect that line of reasoning to end up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy, difficult to judge because of the red herrings and refusal to answer straight questions, but I guess part of where PBS is coming from is best expressed in his Napoleon vs Napoléon argument (made some time ago, but actually the only argument relevant to diacritics, rather than wasting everyone's time with red herrings like Tony Blair vs Anthony Blair). In the field of royalty (Napoleon was an emperor) and Napoleonic and earlier history. The use of Elisabeth of Valois vs Élisabeth de Valois connects use of a diacritic with other elements of English, such as English "of" rather than French "de". This is particularly notable in some names where English and French are distinguished only by an acute accent. Part of what's currently happening may be that WP:NCROY is playing the tail wagging the dog for the WP:DIACRITICS guideline, and tennis players are treated as if they have aristocratic names whereby Ana Ivanović should if she was 17th Century nobility be translated to Anna of John, but knocking off the ć will stand now. This WP:NCROY or Napoleonic perspective has no traction with BLP editors normally, but where there is a pre-existent cluster of "English names for foreigners" supporters - such as not just 1 editor at WP Tennis, the Napoleonic perspective and the "English names for foreigners" perspective form a sort of unholy marriage to disrupt the encyclopedia at 0.0001% of articles. I don't expect that PBS will drop his strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis), but when in drafting the RfC proposal some allowance needs to be made to allow Elisabeth of Valois vs Élisabeth de Valois, either a specific. WP:NCROY caveat or mention of a date-stamp of some kind such as WP:BLP. We could include "either Elisabeth of Valois or Élisabeth de Valois", along the lines of WP:EN "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich". In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, I don't actually see the equivalence. The word "de" is clearly different to "of", and the latter can be said to be clearly constituting an anglicization. Also, the name "Elisabeth" is not just a Élisabeth with the diacritics pruned out of convenience - it's also a normal English word/name. So the issue is separate from the character set difference. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, they aren't equivalent, that's what I meant to say. This is the case of a translated personal name not of diacritics. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Iio what does "high-MOS" mean? Iio you write "I don't expect that PBS will drop his strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis)," Either cross that out or provide a diff to where I have oppose the use of "Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis" in helping to decide an article title. -- PBS (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS
If you don't understand what "high-MOS" means how can you ask for it to be crossed out?
One of the places where you showed strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis) was in the recent Talk:Ana Ivanovic RM where you made several posts advocating following sources which do not carry Serbian fonts over sources which do, such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
In any case discussion here is over as far as I am concerned - the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this Talk page contrary to en.wp article reality is not going to change, posting here is a waste of time, and it will need colder weather to run an RfC to bring this guideline into line with article reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You have not explained what you mean by "high-MOS" and you have not produced any diffs to back up your allegations. Please do so. -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS
High-MOS means a MOS with a high typography including diacritics.
The RM (as most of BLP articles which have been disrupted) was about a minority of high typography sources vs a majority of low typography sources. Your six contributions to the RM say what they say, based on your interpretation of "reliable". Followed up in your continuation with User:Mareklug: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Now this is enough. B2C started this thread, I've said what I have to say. This is time wasting.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Not one of those diffs you have provided support your accusation that I have oppose the use of "Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis" in helping to decide an article title. If you can not support you accusation then please cross it out. -- PBS (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS,
I am on this thread because B2C started it. I do not want to talk to you.
Please do not paraphrase me. No one said anything about "helping" to decide an article title. "Helping" could mean referring to a minority of high-MOS sources such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis, then saying that because there are more low-MOS sources such as sports websites we will follow low-MOS sources. What I said was "the use" of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis), "the use of high-MOS hardback sources" means "the use of high-MOS hardback sources" not "help from high-MOS sources" "including high-MOS sources in the sample" but "the use of high-MOS hardback sources". This means "the exclusive/preferential use of high-MOS hardback sources as being WP:RS "Reliable for the statement being made", as you well know. Now that is more than enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Iio what you wrote was "I don't expect that PBS will drop his strong opposition to use of high-MOS hardback sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis)," you have not produced one diff to support that statement so please strike it out. -- PBS (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

PBS, your strong opposition to use of a minority of high-MOS hardback sources carrying East European fonts (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis in the case of Ana Ivanović) over a majority of low-MOS sports html sources without diacritics could be seen from the following comments from Talk:Ana Ivanović:

Comment "Please note that this is the only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp and that no green card or dual nationality issues are involved". What has a "green carand "dual nationality" got to do with anything (BTW green card is a specifically American centric thing immigration documents to other countries are not all called green cards)? For example what about all those Irish people such as Gerry Adams (I have no idea what he was christened, but for sure he was not christened "Gerry")? BTW Irish people have the right to abode in any part of the UK without any more documentation than a British person needs, after all part of Ireland is in the UK. Besides even if you were right and this was "only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp" you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should ignore usage in reliable sources and set a rule based on an internal consistency. Consistency should not trump usage in English language reliable sources. If it did then we would probably remove the diaeresis of the e on the members of the "Brontë family", because it is uncommon to use a diaeresis on an e in the spelling of English names, we do not because of usage in reliable English language sources. Iio can you justify a move on common usage in reliable English language sources, because you parenthetical justification does not meet Wikipedia article title policy or its naming conventions. -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Iio luckily there is guidance on how to asses usage in reliable sources, which does not come down to a personal point of view (because your statement "Other editors do not consider sources with no É in the font set reliable for the statement of whether a name has É. Same then with ć.", is mirrored in the view that the only reliable sources are those that stick to the 26 letters of the English alphabet (because for example it is easy to type and does not screw up characters used in the url) -- which I think is the counterpart of the personal view you are putting forward). Such statements do not allow editors acting in good faith to agree on a compromise. There is guidance on how to assess what are suitable reliable sources that can be used that does not rely on a personal prejudice. It is in the appropriate naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and it says "In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed". In this case which of the three criteria indicates support for you move? -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions @MTC how do you know it is the "only correct spelling"? @mgeo how do you know it is the "More accurate spelling"? -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wikpidia policy that says follow usage in reliable sources, there is no consensus for basing an a rticle title on "I don't like it" or "I prefer". So your "More accurate spelling" is really "it doesn't seem the best choice to me". If my interpretation of you statements is not correct do you have any evidence to show what the usage is in English language sources provides evidence that a particular spelling is the "More accurate spelling"? -- PBS (talk)

What is the evidence that you have that her name is "definitely romanised as Ana Ivanović" in most reliable English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That speaks for itself. As I noted - "as before with lengthy discussion on Talk:Édouard Deldevez RM the difference between your interpretation of WP:RS and other en.wp editors' lies is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content". Other editors do not consider sources with no É in the font set reliable for the statement of whether a name has É. Same then with ć." In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Not one of the quotes (which I think would have been better done as diffs) shows that I have "a strong opposition to use of 'high-MOS hardback'(sic) sources (such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis)" quite the contrary is shows that I am willing to support a survey of all types of reliable sources when deciding on an article title (as should be done for all article titles unless they are descriptive ones made up by Wikipedia editors), so please strike through your false comment. -- PBS (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
PBS this "strike your false comment" is being aggressive, threatening (again), and playing word games. When I say "use" I clearly simply mean "use" - I don't have to strike it through because by "use" you mean to consider but then reject because high-MOS hardback sources such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis in that case, are in the minority to low-MOS sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing you have written or the diffs you have provided support the false comment you have made so please strike out the sentence as I have requested. -- PBS (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe

Maybe we should actually have a discussion specifically about this idea of a source being "reliable for spelling". Here's my suggestion for how to handle it, to keep it completely away from any particular example:


Question: When trying to determine the best spelling for the name of a person, place, or thing, editors naturally look to the spelling used in sources. Some editors say that the spellings used in all English-language reliable sources about that subject should be considered. Other editors say that the spellings in only a small proportion of English-language reliable sources should be considered. Specifically, these editors say that only reliable sources that use diacritics for some names (although not necessarily for the name being considered) should be accepted.

For example, imagine that editors are looking at published lists of names for famous operas. Editors in the inclusive group would consider the spellings used in all of these lists. Editors in the restrictive group would reject any list that did not contain at least one instance of a diacritic. The first group believes this approach produces results biased in favor of diacritics, rather than being a neutral survey of the sources. Which approach do you think is better?

We should consider the spelling in all reliable English-language sources We should only use English-language sources that use diacritics for some names
  • If you limit your sources to only those with the Right™ typography, your results are inherently biased and in some cases may be biased against the most common spelling. For example, in determining the correct title for the English word cooperation, including only sources that contain diacritics will bias the results in favor of the alternate spelling coöperation.
  • Our readers will be used to what typical sources choose.
  • Because Wikipedia editors should always follow sources that are reliable for the specific subject under consideration, not sources that are reliable for how some other publication chooses to handle these things (style guides).
  • Omitting diacritics looks less professional.
  • When considering non-English words, people who are native speakers of the language in question will find the omission odd.
  • Because Wikipedia editors should pick and follow style guides written for other publications.
  • If there are no diacritics visible in the publication, then you can't know if they deliberately omitted them.

The idea is that someone from each side fills in a brief summary of the reasons. Do you think that something like this will work? Is it a narrow enough question that we could actually get an answer to the question being asked (i.e., whether "reliable on spelling" is a valid restriction)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In which case such a discussion is pointless.
Out of interest may I first ask you the basic question: Do you User:WhatamIdoing agree that there's a gap between article title reality and current state of WP:DIACRITICS? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that a properly advertised RFC would not result in a local consensus. In fact, we even could agree that the "regulars" on this page, like you, me, and PBS, should avoid expressing their views in it beyond writing the question. Towards that end, I'll keep my opinion to myself for now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the main disconnect here is that if you base the discussion on entirely depending on outside sources to determine your own style, you're never going to go anywhere because there will always be several reasonable manuals of style out there to pick from and your problem still isn't automatically solved. I trust I don't have to repeat the link to the list from the RfC two years ago. IOW, the matter has to be an editorial decision here, but trying to bind it into a question of verifiability will necessarily prejudice it. It would be like binding the MOS:ENGVAR issue with outside sources that use each variety. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to base the style on something other than reliable sources, then we need to make a decision that is either pro-diacritics, anti-diacritics, or first-come/first-served, with zero reference to the usage in reliable sources. I do not believe that the community will accept an answer that is based on our choice of style rather than one reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, there is a question for you above. I'm not sure if "Towards that end, I'll keep my opinion to myself for now" is in response to it. If not do you User:WhatamIdoing agree that there's a gap between article title reality and current state of WP:DIACRITICS? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually now I think of it the name User:WhatamIdoing rings a bell, ... we haven't been round this before haven't we. You werern't the editor here who when asked before whether en.wp's articles used diacritics and they either refused to answer or claimed not to know? I apologise if I'm getting you confused with someone else - this Talk page doesn't seem a good place to find people who are familiar with how the encyclopedia's articles actually are titled. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I am refusing to answer your question at this time, because I do not want to discuss it in advance of an RFC about that issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well in that case perhaps you should also consider to strike through your suggestions above. In my view if an editor isn't prepared to discuss openly en.wp naming reality, they shouldn't presume to be setting the agenda for discussing that reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Who ever said that that either option is unsupported by reliable sources? That's the key point, you can find reliable sources that support either option. Can you please read the list user Prolog assembled? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You objected to "bas[ing] the discussion on entirely depending on outside sources to determine your own style". The English Wikipedia's style is to depend entirely on outside sources for each article title. If you want to know how to style a title, or how to spell it, then our rule has been to look at the reliable sources about that exact subject (i.e., not a style manual with general rules, but a reliable source that contains actual content about the specific subject in question).
Prolog's list is entirely about how other places choose to style their titles and is consequently irrelevant. There are no reliable sources on the subject of how Wikipedia chooses to style titles. The purpose of the discussion is to find out how Wikipedia chooses to do it, not to find out how other places choose to do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No, actually, it's not, because it can't be - whenever there's more than 1 title for a thing in the sources, we use our own policy (WP:AT) to decide what to do. We don't depend entirely on outside sources, because that would cause our process to be deadlocked half the time.
How can you possibly claim that other people doing the exact same thing we're doing here irrelevant, while at the same time arguing that we depend entirely on other people? :) Take a pick - either you acquire information from outside sources in a non-arbitrary manner, or you don't. We're an encyclopedia, which means we necessarily acquire factoids from the outside for our content. Those factoids are sometimes the result of someone else's editorial process. Other people's published manuals of style are also factoids. You're basically saying our editorial process has to be constrained to the choice of a subset of everyone else's factoids (their choices of names and spelling), while at the same time we would have to ignore another subset of everyone else's factoids (their manuals of style). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not quite true. When there is more than one title in the sources, our policy (at AT) is choose one of the uses in the sources about the subject (using the various criteria listed at AT for selecting between them). Our policy is not to look up someone else's style manual and choose the title that someone else's style guide recommends.
So, basically, yes: we have a policy of constraining our choices to the "factoids" present in the reliable sources about the subject and ignoring the "factoids" present in sources reliable for a completely different subject (i.e., when the subject is a person, we ignore sources that are reliable for questions about the style that ought to be used in newspaper articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so I'm preaching to the choir, you then simply agree that we should use diacritics in people's names if the reliable sources for people's names include them? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, I am still not convinced that you understand the problem. When you say "(i.e., when the subject is a person, we ignore sources that are reliable for questions about the style that ought to be used in newspaper articles)." do you mean that, say in the case of Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) we have 100 sources discussing the subject, 1 hardback book which uses French accents with other people which spells Frédéric, and 99 newspapers and html sites which use only 26 alphabetic characters that we follow the 1 source as WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made", or follow the 99? In ictu oculi (talk)

Infobox

Hi. Our naming convention here states that: "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article ..." And of course the infobox is summary of the article. But an editor has now repeatedly deleted the native spelling of the name of a person from the infobox (as a secondary reflection of the name, after the English, same as in the first sentence of the article). And I'm certain I've seen such reflected commonly throughout the Project. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the infobox in question have a field for the native spelling? If so, it can, of course, be used; no doubt about it. On the other hand, if the infobox does not have a dedicated field and the native spelling had been appended to the English spelling or inserted into a field with a different purpose, then it should be removed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 16:59 (UTC)
Why? If a specific infobox does not support a common feature of infoboxes, why should we remove attempts to include the data within the limits of the existing template? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Because, first, including non-related information into a field designed for something else entirely is never a good practice. If it were OK, the infoboxes would have had just a bunch of generic fields into which editors would have been able to insert whatever information they pleased. That clearly is not the case. Also, infoboxes not only serve as a quick reference for the readers, they are parsed by various tools to extract the data automatically (possibly including, in the long run, for our own Wikidata). If you cram native name into, say, the place of birth field (for the sole reason that the native name field is unavailable and the end result looks OK visually), you won't be doing whatever automated processes depend on that field any favors.
Second, the design of an infobox does (or at least is supposed to) reflect the consensus of the editors working on the articles in that particular field. If the infobox does not include a field for native name, chances are the editors didn't want it there in the first place. It may, of course, also be an oversight, in which case a quick note on the corresponding WikiProject's talk page asking for the field to be added should clarify the issue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:39 (UTC)
A) I don't see this as a case of "a field designed for something else entirely." It is a field for the name. There are actually two such fields. The native spelling of the name is one variant of precisely .. the name. B) Insertion of the native name in the golfer infoboxes reflects, I would think, that editors do not feel it inappropriate. Just the opposite. C) It seems illogical that we should mandate use of the native name in the first sentence of the article, and then forbid it (not even leave it as optional) in the ibox.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
There are different kinds of names: full names, legal names, names under which a person is best known, nicknames, pen names, native full names, native short names, and so on, and so forth. This is why it is important that the template's documentation makes it clear exactly what kind of name the field is intended for (and I can see how for some a "full name" may not be the equivalent of a "native name"). And with Infobox golfer, since the documentation does not elucidate the field's purpose, common practices in that field is what you should be looking at. Do article's about other golfers include native spelling in the "full name" field? If so, there should be no problem to do the same. If they don't, then the issue should be taken to WikiProject Golf. You may very well find out that it's a simple oversight or that a perfectly good yet non-obvious reason exists to not include native spellings in golfer infoboxes. Since I'm not involved with that WikiProject, this is the best recommendation I can provide.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:53 (UTC)
  • It (the golfer infobox) has: a) a field for the name (and a native spelling of a name is of course by its nature a spelling of the name), and b) a spelling mandated for inclusion in the first line of the article), and a field for "full name." Common usage of the golfer ibox commonly reflects native spelling -- see, e.g., Korean Ji-Young Oh, Japanese Tōru Nakamura, Russian Svetlana Gounkina, Taiwanese Amy Hung, Thai Thongchai Jaidee. If it is important enough to be mandated in the first sentence of an article, it seems common sense it is reasonable to reflect it in the ibox ... which is summary of the article. Iboxes as a rule generally reflect mandated information.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying which infobox you are talking about. From what I see, {{Infobox golfer}}'s documentation does not clarify what it is exactly that the full_name field is supposed to contain. If the majority of golfer articles use it to hold the native spelling, then you are, of course, correct that it can be used for that purpose in other articles about golfers. And if the field's purpose is different, then I would say that the participants of WikiProject Golf should edit the template's documentation to make it more clear. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:43 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I can't speak for the majority of article -- I haven't checked more than a handful -- but from what I see it is common for native name to be reflected in the ibox, where it is reflected in the article in the first place. And of course I can't, without delving deeper, see if any instances where it is not reflected in the ibox reflect inadvertence or judgment being applied. The titles "name" and "full name" are broad enough to include native name -- they certainly don't by their general meaning exclude native name. And, as Vega points out, we generally are happy to include such info in iboxes. There is no clear effort at prohibition here. And, if we as a matter of course reflect the native name of, say, the Prime Minister of Japan (Shinzō Abe), why would we mandate deletion of a the native name of a Japanese golfer ... or are people suggesting stripping away the prime minister's native name from the ibox? Plus, the other points I make above. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fraternities and Sororities

Most USA Fraternities and Sororities are represented by a combination of 2 or 3 Greek Letters. While the standard is to name the article after the spelled out Greek Letters such as Alpha Phi Delta, my question is about redirects from the actual combination of Greek Letters such as ΑΦΔ which redirects to Alpha Phi Delta. Should those be added to Category:Redirects from alternative languages?Naraht (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Naming Conventions (use English) apply to mentions of names in other articles?

This guideline seems to directly address naming conventions only for Wikipedia articles in which the articles are primarily about the person, place, or thing for which there is more than one name version:

  • The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language ...
  • The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known.
  • The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged ...
  • When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version.

etc.

What about mentions of names in articles that are primarily about a different subject? For example, what about when Beijing is mentioned in an article that is about the Presidency of Richard Nixon? In such a situation, the name in question will not appear in the article title and possibly may not appear in the lede or the opening paragraph of the main part of the body of the article either. Is this guideline meant to cover such situations, and if so, shouldn't the language of the guideline be tweaked to make that clear? Dezastru (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a related Request for Comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. Dezastru (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Icelandic (proper) names

"The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." Unlike for Irish vs. English where there are two versions for place names, in Iceland (and I assume other countries) there are just Icelandic names with (often) no English counterpart (counts double for peoples names). You would for sure find them on an Icelandic map. I assume you can always use them directly if you know them (and provide redirect for transliterated version). There has never been any controversy brought to my attention. The Icelandic alphabet use diacritics (and ö, þ, æ. People tend to misread Þþ for Pp and Ðð for Dd. I would think including these letters would be ok for peoples names (in title) as they are not that confusing? When putting names in new articles people just copy-paste? Or if not use the redirect (is there any rule about linking to real name and not the redirect?).

If people get famous, then in English reliable sources you would see Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and hardly ever Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson that you would see in Icelandic reliable sources (that you don't want to add to article). Allowing only "í" but not "ð" in title looks very wrong.. comp.arch (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Comp.arch, I'm afraid the wording in this guideline is out of date and/or reflects the views of the editors who have edited the guideline, but as has been pointed out on this Talk page archive before in any case is at odds with Wikipedia's actual article reality. All straightforward Latin alphabet European bios and geos on en.wp have full font diacritics (except one). Icelandic names have been brought to RM, see Talk:Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, but the consensus of editors is to treat Icelandic names the same as every other Latin alphabet name. Ideally the guideline needs editing to reflect the whole corpus of the encyclopedia rather than the views of a small group of editors on this Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
There are some good arguments in that RM against changing from ð and þ (even if þ is not in her name). And I can't say I agree with those who are supporting (that is, do not want ð and þ). I would like the guideline to be explicit about this, allowing these letters. If people oppose I wouldn't want it explicitly saying that :) Then each name could possibly go by what you find in sources. But as you would always find an Icelandic source (and it's the correct name) then I say at least say allow changing to the correct name if not requiring it. It may not matter much but at least Ð (and ð) will never be the first letter in a Icelandic name/word. And as people will not pronounce a name correctly anyway (with eg. th for Þþ) is there much harm in seeing a unusual letter? comp.arch (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Comp.arch I agree, I would also like the guideline to be explicit about this, or at least not to be contradicting article reality. You can see the consensus among en.wp project editors is overwhelming at an RM like Talk:Dominik_Halmosi#Requested_move_2. However as I said this guideline page WP:EN has, at least in the past, been edited by a small group of editors with a result different from the consensus of editors in the en.wp article corpus. In fairness to editors here, there was around 2010 a reaction (if that is the right word) against foreign names/fonts as can be seen here Talk:Lech Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April#Move request Talk:François_Mitterrand#Requested_move Talk:Gerhard_Schröder#Requested_move. Since that time several notable participants in the issue have been either topic-banned or community-banned, with the result that the encyclopedia now is back to 2007-2010 situation of full use of diacritics except for 2 exceptions: (1) some bios with German -ß, see WP:ß, and (2) changes of nationality, such as Handel, Schoenberg, Navratilova. If you wish to propose a change to the wording here which would remove the conflict with en.wikipedia article reality and with editor consensus then I and hopefully others would warmly support it. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems that no change has taken place with regard to Icelandic names, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir etc. are still at Icelandic ð not d - which is not a simple English ABC + diacritic mark font issue. Time has really come, come and gone past the en.wp controversies of 3-4 years back, to make two needed changes:

(1) remove "general usage" in front of "reliable sources" for WP:DIACRITICS. As "Wałęsa" RMs illustrate we simply don't "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" for deciding when to use diacritics, we follow the high-MOS, Unicode sources with the option of full fonts.
(2) relink reliable sources to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which includes "reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" not the current (mis)link to Wikipedia:Verifiability which is irrelevant to font issues. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree; those are good points. We should err in favour of accurate spelling. If certain sources have systematic inaccuracies, we don't have to slavishly follow them. bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Then will go ahead with those two changes. Okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of the section ("The use of modified letters (...) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged") should be brought in line with current practice. The deeper details of how this is done (e.g. by excluding a set of sources that would be reliable in other contexts) should only be changed if the principle is set.
This can't be done as a corollary on icelandic names (it is a broader issue), so such change should be proposed (at least) under a separate appropriate title on this talk page, if not RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
A simpler solution would be to change "reliable sources" for "sources which are reliable for the statement being made" as that is the nub of the situation. The community has consistently rejected the view that basic-ASCII-only sources which cannot carry accents are a reliable source for use of accents. A minor text change, repointing attention to the relevant part of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is only controversial if someone actually objects to the IRS guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
...which addresses neither of the two issues I mentioned in my previous comment on this page:
  • Don't adjust the minute details while the elephant is still in the room. The elephant being the wide discrepancy between the indifference proclaimed by the guideline ("...neither encouraged nor discouraged") and the current practice.
  • This is a wider issue than a discussion on Icelandic names. This should be discussed under an appropriate title, so that people interested in diacritics but not necessarily in Icelandic proper nouns know by the title of the section what is discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, see below. Though a change of "reliable sources" for "sources which are reliable for the statement being made" is still the nub of the situation as that is how borderline decisions are made. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Second issue first?

Whatever happens re above, the WP:DIACRITICS section doesn't cover what is now the more discussed area - in article/lead use of diacritical marks such as macrons in romanizations. I would propose a small text caveat being added at the bottom of the existing section, with after word-smithing something similar to below: In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-Latin alphabet diacritical marks : The above guidance refers primarily to the use of Latin alphabet language diacritical marks in titles and article body where these marks are part of the normal modern spelling of the language. The above guidance does not primarily relate to diacritical marks used in romanizations of non-Latin alphabet languages - such as Chinese pinyin, romanization of Sanskrit, romanization of Japanese, romanization of Arabic. Such diacritical marks as may exist within common romanization systems are generally not used in titles, but may be used in article body, for example once in lead sentence, depending on MOS guidance for specific topic fields.

This is instruction creep. It is not up to naming conventions to encroach on the MOS. When you write "where these marks are part of the normal modern spelling of the language" to which language do you refer? The titles of articles should follow the usage in reliable English language sources. Under the MOS there may well be other criteria for spelling words in a different language in other ways to explain usage in other languages but this does not relate directly to the title. . -- PBS (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not instruction creep since it is not giving instructions, but guidance and direction to the relevant MOS. Since en.wp universally uses diacritics for latin alphabet foreign names, the main area where "diacritics" is relevant is the secondary area of romanizations. Therefore it makes no sense to have a section "diacritics" which doesn't give any direction to the main area where diacritics guidance applies, namely romanizations. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Use of characters from the Icelandic alphabet

No consensus, largely because half the editors participating thought this to be an invalid RfC. There was suggestions that this may be best discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland/Style advice, but there were also concerns as to why Icelandic letters were being singled out, and not, for example, ß. Number 57 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When titling Wikipedia articles, should the Icelandic letters eth (ð) and thorn (þ) be used?

Please support one of the options below.

(Proposed by Formerip (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC).)

Option A

In article titles, eth and thorn should generally be used, where appropriate.

Option B

In article titles, eth and thorn should generally not be used. "d" and "th", respectively, should be used instead.

Option C

In article titles, eth and thorn should be used only in cases where it can be shown that this is the most common style for the name of the subject in question, following the general principle of WP:COMMONNAME.

Option D

In article titles, eth and thorn should be used unless it can be shown that the name of the subject in question has an anglicised form which is not simply a transliteration.

Option E

This is somthing that should just be left to the discretion of editors.

Discussion

  • oppose this overly broad RFC which is picking on the Icelandic alphabet for no good reason(what about other scripts?) and the overly broadly use of 'in wikipedia's voice' which doesn't clarify what the extent of this. If you want to formulate an RFC let's have some discussion here first on the scope and framing. For example, one way might be 'should we allow the use of these two characters in titles' - we'd also have to consider Æ i think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand the objection. The RfC focuses on two characters which have been the subject of recent discussion on this page. That's quite a narrow focus. I think a broader focus would be a bad idea because the issues involved would become more complicated and a "no consensus" outcome more likely. I don't personally find the use of "æ" controversial, which is why I have chosen not to include it in the question. Formerip (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy close When writing in English, should the Icelandic letters ... be used in Wikipedia's voice? This is an inappropriate forum for this question. This is a naming convention (about article titles), this is a question for the WP:MOS or one of its guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    Fair point, I have modified the question. Formerip (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as disruptive - this editor has made very clear above his/her views on the "insurgency" of foreign names for foreign people and places on en.wp above, and blowing up this one minor issue is a dramatization of the broader issue which should be recognized first before grandstanding in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    If there's broad support for closing down this RfC (not just from editors who support wide use of non-English characters), then I will happily hat it myself. Formerip (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    Actually the proper place is here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Iceland-related_articles. If you want to do an RFC, I would first propose your changes to that guideline, see if you get consensus, and then attempt to promote the whole guideline to actually be a formal guideline (it seems there was some dispute about this back in 2007).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    OK, well, likewise, if there is broad support for doing that, then that is what I will do. Formerip (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Option B, per the policy at WP:UE, which states, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet...must be transliterated" into letters that typical readers of English are likely to recognize. Thorn is a runic letter, not a Latin letter; therefore the policy already says that you need to transliterate it (for the title). Eth's origin is unknown to me, but it is certainly not recognizable by typical English readers (unlike accented characters, which all basically competent readers will recognize, even if they don't know how to type them on their own keyboards). Therefore, I'd reject eth on the same policy grounds, although I'm open to persuasion there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@FormerIP: please hat this proposal. You started off with one suggestion when that was pointed out was out of the scope of this page you changed it. But these ideas are against common name usage, ie if a survey of reliable English sources commonly use either one or more of the characters in the name then so should the Wikpedia article. If not then Wikipedia should not. This is no different from using "W" in a name as that is not an original Latin character and is not used in all European languages use that letter even though they use a Latin alphabet. If editors in RM discussions follow usage in reliable English language sources and it meet the requirements of the AT policy then there is no need for specifics like this. Suggesting that specific characters are included or excluded from article titles, encourages those who wish to ignore usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the question, so it probably doesn't matter much one way or the other whether I hat it. For now, I'll leave it open because I believe it is a useful question to ask.
You say "the ideas are against common name usage", but I don't think this is so. COMMONNAME is one of the options. You are quite right that "If editors in RM discussions follow usage in reliable English language sources and it meet the requirements of the AT policy then there is no need for specifics like this." How ever, it is abundantly clear that they most often do not follow such usage when it comes to the issue of diacritics and non-English characters. It is claimed that this is acceptable and, although it appears to be against policy, it merely reflects the consensus of the community. I think this is a claim that ought to be tested. It seems sadly possible that the community simply doesn't care enough to enforce the policy, in which case the question of whether it supports it or not is a bit moot. Formerip (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I second the request that you please hat this proposal. If as you say there is no support for it then keeping it open is not helping anyone and is not a useful question in any sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Option B We have a good rule: they are not generally recognized, and should not be used. I think option C is inconsistent with this, and should rarely apply only with very special justification. Of the two rules, the rule that we use latin alphabet letters is the more important. Unlike most sources in English, we write for a world-wide audience that includes a great many non-native speakers who will be utterly lost when they encounter the characters. (The question is whether they're in the Latin alphabet--I think not; they have not been assimilate except in some individual countries; they're different from accent marks, which people who do not understand them simply ignore.) "Common usage is too vague--we need common world-wide usage to justify this. I know we have been including them, and I think we need to change. OIf there's a choice between writing for the broadest audience or a more knowledgable one, we should write for the broader--especially in article titles. (obviously, the forms with the characters should be included prominently in the first sentence of the article and linked from, just as we always would for a name in cyrillic or greek) This may need a wider RfC, basically i agree with WhatamIdoing and to some extent with FormerIP--our practice should change if appropriate, and we can revisit even basic practices occasionally. I think early on we did not fully realize the extent to which the English WP would be used by people with a scant knowledge of English. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option B — WP:Recognizability is an issue here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as above (or Option A, if necessary)
To quote WP:AT:
The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources, while for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively).
Eth and thorn are both letters in the Latin alphabet, even if they are not necessarily familiar ones. WP:TSC and WP:DIACRITICS cover this precise issue by recommending redirects from the unmodified forms (in this case, presumably that would be d and th.
Given that the very article ß is titled by its Latin alphabet character, I don't see that two other uncommon Latin letters should be singled out in this fashion. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
ETA: I'd agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Iceland-related articles would be where this topic should be discussed. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Archive_11&oldid=1065792987"