Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

---

Macau

I am reverting this revert (Revision as of 16:01, 14 August 2009), because we do not as part of policy demand consistency across the names of articles, although it may be put forward as desirable as a suggestion in a guideline. So I suggest that if it is to be be added it be added as a guideline to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) --PBS (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well others had revised it after what I thought was the last revision to Macau, but I still maintain this is something for placement in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) if anywhere, so I have removed it from this policy page. --PBS (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a fine place, I was trying to figure it out. There are a lot of other country/regional/geographic names in this list... SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Or Talk:Macau. I tend to agree; it's policy that one article name does not force another. On the other hand, consistency is a minor good, and should not be dismissed out of hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've hardly looked, but are we taking positions on individual cases in these docs? This should be left to RfCs and summarized discussions, or some sort of list of these.    M   15:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortest reasonable name

Can we expand #Name construction to recommend against unnecessarily long names, specifically for unnecessary 'disambiguation' purposes? For example, it's Paris, not [[Paris, France (city)]], or Swine flu, not [[Swine flu in Mexico, the United States, Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, and other countries]].

This has been a problem with several education-related articles this summer. Generally, it's a newbie editor and a poorly developed article: the newbie looks at it, sees that the only country mentioned by name is the US, and demands that the article be re-titled as [[_______ in the United States]], despite the fact that either (1) the topic only exists in the US (making the disambiguation entirely pointless) or (2) the US is mentioned only in passing, in an article that obviously applies to the entire world (e.g., the article about the general concept of educating students with disabilities).

If allowed, such renamings would have the obviously undesirable effect of making readers think that we have a heirarchy of articles on the general subject. I think that some of these inexperienced editors believe that the page name should be as specific and descriptive as possible, instead of being as specific as necessary -- so it's a good faith error -- but it would be helpful to me if this were directly addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the cases you present in your second paragraph, I think that current policy ought to provide sufficient reason to oppose the kind of things you're upset about - especially argument 2, which is obviously silly. john k (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the WP:NC#Be precise when necessary section, it says "...avoid over-precision". Perhaps that needs to be expanded on somewhat (although it doubtless is at the dedicated guideline page).--Kotniski (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remember the "avoid over-precision" for the next round. Yes, John, it's kind of silly, once you're used to Wikipedia's conventions, but an inexperienced editor won't know that. Having to explain the same point repeatedly is time-consuming and boring. Being able to point to a specific line in a policy or guideline is more efficient (for me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this or not?

All right, this again. This is what it currently says at the WP:Naming conflict guideline:

Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name, even if they do not have a right to use that name. This standard ensures that Wikipedia remains neutral in political naming disputes. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

The city formerly called Bombay now calls itself Mumbai; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles.

This seems to be in conflict with what we currently say on this page, which puts the common name principle first. This text can't be right in one place and wrong in another - either it's the rule or it isn't. So if people are happy for it to be on the other page, I propose - for consistency, even though I personally disagree with it - putting it on this page as well, and at the top, since it is worded as a rule that takes precedence over all others. But it isn't to be on this page, then surely we should modify it on the other page to make it clear that it isn't our overriding principle in such cases (as someone on the other talk page seems to think).--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It should not be on this page. Mumbai has more to do with National verities of English and usage by reliable sources like the BBC. We can not have the Government of the Union of Myanmar dictating what Burma should be called. --PBS (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Our priority should be the name which is most useful to our readers. The names which people choose for themselves are not necessarily the best because they have a conflict-of-interest and so may choose names which mislead or promote. For example, Cassius Clay also called himself The Greatest. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought. But in that case, surely it shouldn't be on the other guideline page either? Or if it is, it should be heavily modified?--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that (English equivalents/translations of) self-identifying names should be used as article titles (especially, in those which refer to names of states and nations, since (at least, in my opinion) using the most "common name" (especially, if it is controversial) is not always "neutral point of view" in such cases), however, if the same (self-identifying) name is also used by other self-identifying entities (or it has another important use), I believe disambiguations in parentheses should be added to such article titles (or if necessary, alternative self-identifying names (at least, if there are any) should be used for the article titles of all the self-identifying entities that claim the same title), Wikipedia should not pretend that a name used by multiple entities can be used only by one entity, and avoid giving the impression that a self-identifying entity has more right than other self-identifying entities to that name, that would be subjective criteria. (For example, the title "Catholic Church" is used by multiple Churches, as shown here, also the descriptive "catholic Church" is an important concept for many Churches, and that title cannot make distinction between the title "Catholic Church" (which is claimed by multiple self-identifying entities) and the important descriptive concept "catholic Church".) In my opinion, these things should be explained more clearer in this policy and also in the WP:NCON guideline. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that preferred names are not overriding. I question the need for a 'naming conflicts' page - that's the role of this page, to help resolve common naming disagreements. Also, I only cleaned up one section in Conflicts, but 80% of that section was bloated and unneeded.    M   16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict has existed for quite some time, and I think for good reason. It's asking to much to make this one page answer every question about naming. The role of the Naming conflict page is to handle cases when the usual conventions do not yield a clear choice of names; that's likely way too much to cram into this page. So I think Naming Conflict is entirely necessary, though it may need to be cleaned up. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph is entirely incompatible with WP:UE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAMES, and should be removed. Knepflerle (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I don't see how there is any incompatibility. UE allows for other naming conventions, officialnames is an essay, and commonnames is not being contradicted at all. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an attempt to change this long-standing policy surreptitiously by Kotniski and a couple of his friends. Having failed to gain consensus for a change on the article talk page, they have now moved the discussion here, without informing the original participants. This policy has stood since 2005, and is used by most Wikipedia articles. This is because it is clear. And resolves disputes on self-identifying names quickly.

In fact the policy as repeated above is not the longstanding polkcy. It was an attempted compromise with M and Kotniski. Since that compromise has been broken by coming here, and completely reveresing the policy unilaterally. The ORIGINAL longstanding policy has been reverted. Xandar 23:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is just irresponsible. If one does not like the application of a policy we just change the policy? Cody's statement that there are other real world entities that carry the name "Catholic Church" is simply false. Every other entity bears some kind of modifier to distinguish itself from the Catholic Church. So there is no confusion, no injustice. Now there is a theological concept, catholic church, or church catholic. But, there can be no confusion between these two. The church catholic has no body of teaching, no membership, no leadership, no physical address, no 1.14 billion members. It is a theological term used most commonly by specialists. No one answers the question, Where is the Catholic Church? with do you mean Anglican, Orthodox or Methodist? Anyway, the attempt to change WP policy in order to shoehorn in a POV name of a particular article gets the entire purpose of policy backwards. Furthermore, it forces the idea that WP editors should be the judge of what entities should be called which is truly ridiculous.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This could be off-topic, but regarding the claim that there are multiple Churches claiming the title "Catholic Church", there were enough sources shown both here and also in a longer discussion here about this, please check those earlier discussions, at least if you have time. (Also, as far as I know, the Vatican also used "Roman Catholic Church" when distinguishing itself from other Churches.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cody, that discussion is germane to the article(s) in question and it has been answered several times; NONE of the other chuches use Catholic Church as its name and all of them prefer to use other names. There is no confusion and you continue to struggle on forcing a name to be exclusive and absolute, which in the case of a church name, specifically Catholic, it is not and never has been.

More to the topic, there is only one entity capable of identifying itself and that is the entitiy itself. It is silly to assume that editors should ignore an entity's perogative, and call it by another title other than the one used by the group itself. The example given above of Cassius Clay and "the Greatest" is without merit. His name was not the greatest; he only used two names during his lifetime: Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. The current policy adequately, efficiently directs editors how best to handle naming conventions.--^StormRider 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but as far as I see, the claim "NONE of the other chuches use Catholic Church as its name" is clearly Original Research, since there were no sources shown supporting such a claim, and there was enough evidence shown in earlier discussions that there are more Churches claiming the title "Catholic Church" (I assume it is not necessary to re-post all of the things from those earlier comments again here, since I would prefer to not bring all of that discussion here). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly no need to bring all of that discussion here, although that may be necessary if you are going to pick out certain parts of it and present them out of context. The months of discussions, RfCs, reviews, etc. on that issue ended with consensus that Catholic Church was the appropriate title for the article. Minority views were expressed, and concerns addressed through a note, a disambiguation page, etc. It is not original research to say none of the other churches use CC as its name. There is no ambiguity or confusion, other that that created by editors who don't agree with hard-fought and well-crafted consensus that complies with WP policies. This is taking forum-shopping to a new level. --anietor (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "none of the other churches use CC as its name" is not sourced as far as I see (this means it is an assumption, and it can be considered Original Research). Regarding ambiguity, the page Catholic Church (disambiguation) (and also the article Catholicism) alone prove, that this term has multiple meanings. And, regarding WP policy and guidelines, at least in my opinion, this part of WP:NCON, "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.", and also the WP:NCDAB, "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used", were largely ignored, although they were mentioned as far as I know, during the last phase of the mediation (respectively, the "Community consultation"). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cody, it's the same old argument with some new makeup. You need to read about what a disambiguation page is, and what it's not. It is NOT proof of ambiguity, so the fact that CC has a disambiguation page does not support your position. "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Beyond that, it's time you dropped the stick and moved away from this dead horse.--anietor (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see, according to WP:Disambiguation, disambiguation pages are done for ambiguous article titles. The article Catholicism also explains different meanings of "Catholic Church", and even the note in the lead of the current wiki article Catholic Church, states "There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity", and there is also a here which claims that the both the titles "Catholic Church" and "Orthodox Church" are "potentially misleading". As far as I see, there is enough evidence that "Catholic Church" is ambiguous as an article title. Also, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not clearly state (at least, as it is now) that we are forced to use that title as an article title since it states "that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article", this means that we could also use it as a redirect, however, the WP:NCDAB is clear enough in stating that "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used". (The reason these things were repeated, is because, at least as far as I see, they were ignored, and maybe you could also "drop the stick".) Cody7777777 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Original Policy from Wikipedia Naming Coinflict

This is the ORIOGINAL LONGSTANDING POLICY on Self-identifying names which was wrongfully altered by M, Knepferle and Kontiski WITHOUT CONSENSUS or discussion.

Types of entities

A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate or non-human entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain, or a non-human entity such as an animal, does not have a name for itself. Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one. Similarly, the English name cobra for a type of snake is just as arbitrary as the Indonesian name "ular tedung", but the English name is used in the English Wikipedia because it is the standard name in the English language.

A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

Dealing with self-identifying terms

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

Where a name includes geographical directions such as North, East, South or West (in a local language), the full name should be translated into English: hence East Timor, not Timor-Leste; South Ossetia, not Yuzhnaya Osetiya; West Java, not Jawa Barat.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Example

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article where the Maputan-Cabindan controversy is relevant, then the use of the term should be explained and clarified, with both sides' case being summarised.

The above policy has been re-instated in the guidance, since there has been NO CONSENSUS for its removal and reversion. Xandar 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If three editors disagree with it (and more do, including myself), there is a prima facie case that it is not consensus. It is also largely moot, since the specifics of the "Cabinda" example make plain that it is a regle de clef for the Macedonia disaster - now largely settled by WP:MOSMAC2, which does not rely upon self-identifying names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You think it's moot because one of dozens of such international naming conflicts has been settled? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If it addressed international conflicts in general, it would not be moot - but it hypothesized a highly specific set of facts, not true (to pick a random example) of the two entities which call themselves the government of China. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Basically those wanting to change the existing guidance seem to be quarrelling with the policy that the names chosen by self-identifying entities to identify themselves should be followed by Wikipedia. The alternative would be for Wikipedia to decide what these entities names SHOULD be, even if those entities dislike or reject those names. That is a lot more than just the trimming, or shortening of the guidance that was initially claimed by those wanting the change. It would be a major change of policy that would re-start a hundred now-dormant naming conflicts across Wikipedia. Mormom-Latter Day Saints, Macedonia-Greece, Clay-Ali, Catholic-Roman Catholic, Orthodox-Eastern Orthodox, Coptic-Ethiopian Orthodox etc. etc. Basically I think the established guidance adopts the correct principle of WP editors not overruling people, cities or organisations as to what their name is. This guideline exists to supplement WP:NC. It is to help solve problems - which it does by being CLEAR. Kotniski seems to want to make the guidance less clear and more ambiguous. That will help no-one. Xandar 23:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be an extraordinarily bad idea to alter the guideline along the lines that Xandar mentions above. The entire point of the guideline is to establish an objective, descriptive standard for disputed names. Getting rid of that would revert us to the bad old days when the name of a place or thing was at the mercy of any partisan who objected to an existing name (remember the row over whether Gdansk should be called Danzig?). I strongly suspect that this attempt to overturn a long-standing, stable guideline is being pursued in an attempt to gain advantage in some naming dispute in which this guideline has been invoked. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

" I strongly suspect that this attempt to overturn a long-standing, stable guideline is being pursued in an attempt to gain advantage in some naming dispute in which this guideline has been invoked. - you suspect wrong. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The principle that "where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles" has been a valuable guide for settling naming disputes. I agree with Xandar And ChrisO that we cannot simply, on a whim, change a long-standing guideline. Sunray (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The use in article text as stated in the guideline is not disputed or threatened with change, on "a whim" or otherwise. Please examine the edits more closely. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that changing the long-standing guideline would be inappropriate, for the reasons stated. It has been an extremely helpful tool is resolving naming disputes. Changing it would be a mistake, and lead to subjective and arbitrary application of article name approaches. There is NO consensus for this proposed change...which may explain why its proponents are trying to forum shop instead of accepting established consensus. --anietor (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Changing it would be a mistake, and lead to subjective and arbitrary application of article name approaches" - the principle of using WP:NAME is not subjective or arbitrary, and has served very well for thousands of instances. A newly-introduced sentence which contradicted its principles was what I removed.

"its proponents are trying to forum shop instead of accepting established consensus." - I did not take part in the discussion above, and have not forum shopped. However, neutral notification of guideline discussions at relevant policy pages is encouraged. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. If I ran the zoo, self-identified names for entities that can self-identify would be allowed to take precedence over the much-harder-to-pin down guide of most common name, except in cases where the entities self-identified name is so uncommonly used in English as to be unrecognizable to most speakers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that as you know would be a fundamental change to long-standing Wikipedia principle, and would require a deep centralised discussion. It was precisely this, however, that the new compromise wording implied, and so I removed it. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so much a fundamental change to a long-standing Wikipedia principle as a hierarchifying (word?) of existing principles. Self-identifying names is a long-standing Wikipedia principle; so is common English name. Trying to figure out what to use when the two are perceived to be in conflict has been problematic, and thus I've long suggested prioritizing the one that's objective: self-identification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, those who claim that it is people like me who are trying to "change the long-standing guideline" are missing the point. There are two long-standing guidelines (well, one of them is marked as policy) - WP:NC and (the disputed section of) WP:Naming conflict - and they contradict each other. Whatever position we take on common vs. self-selected names, this can't be right. We have to amend and least one (probably both) of them to eliminate the contradiction. Since policy is generally thought to take precedence over guidelines, I guess the status quo is best preserved by amending the guideline to accord with the policy. But if there's consensus for a different solution, then let's do it. But the current situation is logically absurd.--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If any of you commenting above had actually looked at the edit I made, you will see that I took it closer to the 2005 original by removing a section introduced only days ago which was incompatible with any of our other naming conventions. But instead, we get replies here based on a biased and incorrect characterisation left on your talk-pages.

This is precisely why WP:CANVASS exists. Next time you get a rousing battle-cry on your talk-pages, take the moment to verify the facts for yourself. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No one has proved that wp Naming Conflict and WP:NC contradict each other. In fact they complement each other and have been linked since 2005. The existing policy has worked well and has settled many disputes cleanly and quickly. It has been stable for four years with no major demands for change. As such, I think the adage "If it aint broke, don't "fix" it" applies here. The change made by knepferle would have effectively reversed the long-standing existing policy on self-identifying names, and would be a recipe for unending conflict. For example it would mean that Kolkata would have to be renamed Calcutta, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would have to be renamed "Mormon Church" and Xinjiang would have to become "Sinkiang", and Szczecin should become the better known "Stettin." There are hundreds of other examples. Xandar 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No it would not. Kolkata is an WP:ENGVAR matter, being the most-common name in Indian English. Szczecin is more common in contemporary English - if you look through Talk:Szczecin you can see the evidence I presented to an anonymous editor. Xinjiang is demonstrably more common than Sinkiang (105,000 / 7,490 on Google Scholar, Xinjiang primary in Britannica, Encarta and Columbia). If you have hundreds of other examples, they'd better be better than those, because every one is incorrect.

The primary naming convention on this project is use of the most common name. It was editing this guideline to say otherwise which was the breaking that needed fixing. Knepflerle (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. WP:ENGVAR is not about article naming, or changing the names of cities. On Google Scholar Calcutta is demonstrably more common than Kolkata (431,000 / 70,100). The same applies to Bombay over Mumbai. Yet the less common terms are used in Wikipedia. The same applies with Guangzhou and Canton, China, where the Guangzhou form, used by Wikipedia in line with the self-identifying terms guidance, is far less common. The same goes for Qing Dynasty, instead of the more common Ching Dynasty, and the common usage of Mormon, rather than LDS, and many other titles. Usage of the "common name" is not the guideline for self-identifying entities. Xandar 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Xandar Did you seem my earlier comment on Mumbai and National verities of English and usage by reliable sources like the BBC.? --PBS (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly necessary to "prove" that they contradict each other, it's immediately obvious - one says "use the most common name", the other (as you interpret it) says "use the self-chosen name". Whatever the community's position is on this matter, it needs to be stated in the same way in both places. --Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You lost me there. Both the policy and the guideline state that the most common name is the one to be used. The guideline offers additional guidance regarding self identifying names. Are you saying that this should be in the policy as well - i.e., as an additional naming convention? Sunray (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it has the support of consensus, then yes. If not, then no - and it shouldn't be in the other place either. But the guideline (the bit of it we're talking about) is not worded as "additional guidance" - it states (at least, it is interpreted by its supporters as stating) that the self-identifying name (so potentially not the most common name) is the one to be used. Which is especially bizarre since this page (the policy) makes no mention of self-identifying names at all.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're editing the naming policies here, I think we should also consider the sections on article naming from Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming (if necessary, changes could also be done there), to avoid contradictions of wiki policy and guidelines. (As I said before, in my opinion, I believe self-identifying names should be used as article titles (especially, if the "most common name" happens to be controversial), but the disambiguation policy should not be ignored, espeicially, if a self-identifying name is used by multiple self-identifying entities, or if it has some other important meanings, I believe such cases could be solved by adding disambiguations in parentheses to such article titles, or using alternative self-identifying terms.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If the most common name is controversial and the self-identifying name differs from it, the self-identifying name is very likely to be controversial and tendentious; that's usually why (in such situations) it's not often used.

WP:NPOV should certainly be considered in any revision of this, but I would not read it as addressing this situation at all; it seems to be talking about descriptive names, not a conflict of proper names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with efforts here to change the naming policy. I have read them and do not consider them to be a better option than what we currently have already. NancyHeise ^talk 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that it's a guideline, not a policy, and that it seems to conflict with policy.    M   20:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To once and for all get shot of this rubbish about the policies and guidelines "conflicting". This is a direct quote from WP:Naming Conventions

Use common names of persons and things WP:COMMONNAME Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). The WP:Naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

Far from there being a conflict, the policy states that the most common name should be used EXCEPT where another naming convention applies. It then goes on to specifically name "Naming conflict" the guideline some here want to eviscerate, as the place to go to see how to do this. Another statement on exceptions to the "common name" policy is at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Exceptions So the only conflict seems to be in the minds of those wanting to change the guidance.

Again, people have posted that there are no other policies that back up the self-identifying bodies, guidance in WP:Naming conflicts. This is not true either since the Wikipedia Manual of Style at MOS:IDENTITY states clearly When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. This lines up completely with the guidance that certain persons want to reverse. As I have said, nothing is broken. The guidance works well. Let's not mess with it and cause mayhem across Wikipedia. Xandar 01:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While that is a stupid stub of a deservedly reduced page, written (like most of MOS) by a handful of bullies to get their way, it still does not support Xandar's position. When there is no dispute is the key phrase; when there is no dispute, the self-identifying term (or its translation) will almost certainly be English usage. For the same reason, when there is no dispute, there is no resort to Wikipedia space either; there is no dispute about the self-identifying names of France and Germany, so we use the loan-word France and the customary translation of Deutschland - both being English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nor is it policy; MoS is also a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect any changes may lead to re-hashing of old arguments already settled across WP. It is better to leave well enough alone. Do we really want to shake the jar? add to chaos?--EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If arguments have been settled, I suspect it's in spite of the naming conventions as currently written, not because of them. They're one big mess, where anyone can find something that apparently supports the view they currently want to push, which is probably why it's so hard to change them - there is always a hardcore of editors "attached" to the views expressed in a particular place. I'm not interested in tilting any particular naming dispute - but we should document things properly so that the people these pages are actually intended for - new editors trying to find out how things are done around here - get accurate and easy-to-find information.--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have in the past suggested that we rename this page to "Naming policy" or Naming conventions", because the current name causes confusion for those who do not realise that this is a policy page and the guidelines are not conventions but guidance on the conventions (this page). At the moment some people commenting in this section seem to be confused over this. The relationship between policy and guidelines are described succinctly in WP:Policies and guidelines).

It would be a very big move from Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name to use the name an organisation would prefer to be known as. --PBS (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PBS. Have you actually read the naming conventions? It doesn't sound like it from your post. I know you were involved in a naming dispute which has now been decided against you. But it is quite clear from established and unchallenged guidance that there are multiple exceptions from "Use the most easily recognised name." Many of these are listed on this main policy page. Others include the MOS section MOS:IDENTITY I linked to above, another is the guidance with reference to naming disputes, linked from the main policy page, which certain people now suddenly want to reverse. The question has to be asked why certain people now seem to want to remove the long-standing and highly workable exceptions to "Use the most easily recognised name", and try to turn that into an iron rule? The exceptions have been developed and bedded in over time to deal with situations where "the most easily recognised name" is either ambiguous, in dispute, or would result in organisations or individuals being identified by Wikipedia in ways they would find false or offensive. Kontiski claims that the guidance hasn't solved any problems. Yet he has no evidence at all for this, as opposed to the ample evidence to the contrary. The proposers of this radical change seem to be trying to solve a problem that there is absolutely no evidence exists. Where are the problems that these guidelines have caused? Nowhere. Where are the problems that they have easily resolved? Everywhere, including examples already given. One must wonder then why exactly there is such anxiety to overturn these well-functioning policies? Xandar 21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"PBS. Have you actually read the naming conventions?" Yes. For verification please see the archives of this page and the edit history of the page. --PBS (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

a) They are not policies, b) because they are contradictory and confusingly written. We don't need more of that sort of rubbish in our already bloated pages.    M   02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. And no "radical change" is being proposed - all that's being done at the moment is tidying up a poorly written guideline page that misrepresents current practice. As often happens, a huge unnecessary fuss is being made about some simple improvements to the presentation and accuracy of policy/guidelines.--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the page is poorly written, nor has any proof been given that it misrepresents current practice. What is proposed is a major change, that would cause widespread disruption, and to quote user John k, on another proposal backed by Kotniski, in a section above: "This is a plan for a gigantic mess and you simply haven't thought about it enough, or aren't familiar enough with the ramifications of it, to realize what a mess your proposal would be." Xandar 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Both you and John K (in the two different contexts) fail to provide the remotest justification for this scaremongering. How would changing a little-read guideline page cause "widespread disruption"? It wouldn't, of course, any more than changing the titles of articles on a few monarchs to match what the rest of the world calls them could cause widespread disruption. Can we please discuss this rationally and honestly instead of inventing things?--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be conflict of interest motives at work here, which are probably not best to have when proposing changes to fundamental Wikipedia policy. When people are changing policy they shouldn't be doing so on the basis that they failed to gain a consensus on an article and wish to "get around it" another way. In the sense that Cody is aruging here in relation to the Catholic Church/Easter Orthodox sour grapes issue. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the proposers of this have AGAIN moved discussion back to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict. AGAIN without informing participants here, and they have also attempted to vandalise and remove part of the stable guidance AGAIN without any consensus. This is disruptive editing. Similarly some of the participants, such as Septentrionalis, are disruptively trying to hold another vote on the Catholic-Roman Catholic issue well within the six month limitation. We are beginning to see what is lying behind this sudden attempt to disrupt a stable and long-standing guidline. Xandar 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It was quite stable before you changed it back to an old version, apparently because of your own interest in the Catholic Church article. When I changed it before (and no-one objected for months) it was nothing to do with that article - I had no idea of that dispute, and would probably be on your side in it anyway. As far as I can tell, almost everyone who's commented who isn't involved in the Catholic Church thing agrees that the old version of the guideline misrepresented WP practice. It's those who seek to restore it who have a conflict of interest.--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The version I restored was the original version that has stood and worked well without controversy since 2005. Kotniski changed that version on his own determinition, after placing one comment on an unvisited talk page, making an edit summary which did not disclose the extent of the alteration. I noticed the change when referring back to the guidance and reverted, objecting to the substantive change made by one person without community involvement. There was a debate in which there was no consensus for Kotniski's changes, but an attempt was made to build a new consensus around Kotniski's declared aim of shortening the guidance while maintaining its integrity. In the midst of this process Kotniski and others decided to abandon that attempt at a new consensus and to unilaterally alter the guidance in a manner that made it say the opposite of what it previously said! That, and continued attempts by certain people (some involved in a naming dispute) to radically alter the guidance without consensus, are what has brought us here and to the current disoute at Wikipedia naming conflict. One of the editors involved in making these changes has been suspended before for such disruptive behaviour, and is currently the subject of complaints from other editors for his actions on the Manual of Style page. Xandar 11:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean about abandoning the attempt at a new consensus or making something say the opposite. Talking about other editors' behaviour (particularly when your own has been less than exemplary - you fail to admit that you and all(?) those who agree with you are involved in that same naming dispute) isn't going to solve the problem of what the pages should say. Neutral opinion (from outside the Church debate) is that the guidance you keep restoring is not an accurate statement of WP practice, so all you are doing by restoring it is making the page misleading for any poor editor who migh have the mischance to read it and think it means anything.--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting hard to keep track of. Who exactly supports the position that the preferred name overrules the most common name? Is it only Xandar? I oppose it.    M   23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So do I (though that's not to say that a preferred name isn't a strong factor to be considered when it's not obvious what the common name is). In fact the disputed guidance at the other page doesn't even say what Xandar thinks it says - it just says that self-names should be used within articles - but it's a long stream of guff that could be interpreted differently for many purposes. Since it ostensibly doesn't deal with article naming, it should probably be moved from that page (which is avowedly about how to choose the right names for articles) and made into a separate essay (not a guideline, since it still runs counter to consensus).--Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

as matching the article contents

I do not think that adding the phrase "as matching the article contents" is desirable. As I think it put the cart before the horse. Although there is a symbiotic relationship it is usually the name of the article that defines the content scope of the article not the other way around. --PBS (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You could say that about everything on this page, then - according to that logic we shouldn't be talking about what names to give to articles, just about what content to put in an article once a name has been chosen. To me "matching the article contents" is just stating the obvious - it seems too obvious to need stating, but you never know what twisted interpretations some people might put on the words on this page, so I don't object to its being added if people find it useful.--Kotniski (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The concept of "matching the article contents" has been used very negatively in several renaming discussions -- as in, let's rename this "____ in the United States" rather than doing the hard work of providing a global perspective on, e.g., reading comprehension -- so it makes me very nervous. We do not want people to declare the current contents of a stub to be the entire proper scope of an article, and then re-name the article to discourage editors from growing the article. This would be disastrous in many areas: most of WP:MEDGEN's stubs address the heredity of rare genetic disorders, with little or no information about their treatment, and I'd be very unhappy if they were renamed "Genetics of (rare disease)" to "match the article contents".

I agree that article titles should "match" in the sense that they should not be randomly assigned ("A lion is a kind of tropical flower grown in..."), but I don't think that the recent changes add anything (we don't have a problem with this, so we shouldn't bother prohibiting it), and I think that they have the potential to be misunderstood/abused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of what WhatamIdoing mentions: Talk:Censorship of images in the Soviet Union#Requested move --PBS (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It also works the other way. I was involved in the renaming (reversal of a previous WP:RM) of two articles which for several sections were content forks of each other (and which the editors in the previous WP:RM consensu did not seem to be aware of), by renaming them with more precise names it was then possible to remove the overlapping information so that they became part of a series (too much text for one article). If the name had to reflect the content (as is suggested) then there was a possible conflict between this policy and WP:CONTENTFORK, as this is police and CONTENTFORK is a guideline, this suggested addition could hinder the development of the project. --PBS (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary acts SIA or dab?

We seem a bit vague: "If several acts have the same short name, Foo Bar Act should either redirect to the most commonly-used act of the series if one exists (e.g., the Data Protection Acts) or either serve as a disambiguation page (e.g., Representation of the People Acts) or redirect to Foo Bar Acts (plural) which would serve as an article about the series of acts." Rich Farmbrough, 07:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Just an unwise effort to express three options, all valid (as for other naming conflicts) with either/or.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

What does the following (seemingly ungrammatical) sentence mean:

Following linking conventions and naming conventions are more likely to produce working links to the expected article.

It seems to be recommending the use of good linking conventions in a roundabout way - there seems to be no need to link this other guideline. Also,

while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is not a naming issue, it has to do with redirects. Also, much more substantively,

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

This seems to introduce a bias towards academic naming, which would conflict with NPOV. Suppose we have two equally reliable sources, and one states that reliable academic sources use X to refer to the subject in 90% of cases, while the other states that "the greatest number of English speakers" use Y to refer to the subject in 90% of cases. We would go with Y (as per "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize"), but this suggests that we should go with X. Thoughts?    M   20:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a naming issue, as people frequently replace a redirect with the name of the article assuming that the name of the article is the "correct" one.

" Wikipedia determines the recognizability ...", No this does not introduce a bias towards academic naming, as the content of the article must be based on the same reliable sources. --PBS (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite understand the first point. The replacers assume that it is correct, or? For the second point, given my above example, do we call the article X or Y?    M   21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a bias among editors to link directly to the name of an article rather than using redirects. So if the name of the article affects the text of many of the articles that link to it.

In the case of the second, we are very lucky if we have any sources that do what you are suggestion. But reliable sources that give such figures are highly prized, and if available tend to be influential. However I think you are making the mistake of thinking that reliable sources mean academic sources (it does not, as mainstream newspapers, and such like are also reliable sources). Further it is not what people call something that necessarily decides what the article should be, because we are trying to choose a name which most people would expect the article to appear in a reliable source. For example the majority of people in London call the underground system "the tube", but they would probably not expect to find an article in a reliable source under the "London tube system" but under the London Underground. --PBS (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"we are trying to choose a name which most people would expect the article to appear in a reliable source" is what I was looking for, thank you.    M   22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The names read like instructions:

• Use the most easily recognized name
  • Add redirects
• How to rename a page

I think it is better if these steps are kept clear and distinct from the General naming conventions. As they are all anyone really needs to create or move a page.

Originally the "Use the most easily recognized name" was in the lead section, I moved it out of that when I added the current lead, which before had been very messy. It is now referenced as a section all over the place so I think it better to leave it where it is with the section name that it has. --PBS (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the last paragraph of yours. Do you understand that in the course of a cleanup, there may be some intermediary versions which are not the intended finished product? I know what you're trying to do with the 'instructions'. A ToC is not an appropriate place to try to summarize policy.    M   00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what is not clear about my last paragraph. The wording in the section "Use the most easily recognized name" was originally part of the lead. I moved it into a separate section and gave it that name. That section and name is now linked into from lots of different places. You and I will have to disagree over your last sentence. It is no so much in the TOC as on the page. If you put in a lot more steps I may or may not disagree with those. But I do defiantly not agree with moving these sections into the general section. I think those sections should stay were they are at the start of the article. Why not give it 12 hours or 24 hours and see if the changes you have made to date are acceptable before pressing on with more changes? And then we can see if others agree with your last two edits. If you explain what it is that you want to do before you do it then it will help people understand what it is that you are trying to do. --PBS (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is unacceptable about them? Revisions are saved, you can go back to whatever version you like. It's simple courtesy, apparently lacking here, not to revert an editor who has stated that they are doing cleanup a mere two minutes after they start, on the basis of not agreeing with some intermediary version. No wonder this page is a mess.    M   01:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

STOP. Your last edit is nothing short of vandalism. You can not take a key policy section an that has been stable for over a year and revert it to an older version. This is a working policy and it effects the naming and renaming of many articles each day. Pleas STOP and discuss the changes. --PBS (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is unacceptable. Hesperian 00:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What was removed? See this diff. In some previous revision, someone seems to have carelessly removed the statement "you can rename pages to fit", replacing it with "pages may be renamed using [helppage]". Is there an objection to reinstating this? I'm aware that you feel that you need to be given time to look through the changes being made to your policy page, but please give other editors a moment to actually complete their changes before reverting them. And this policy page is by no means a 'china shop' - it's poorly written, redundant, poorly-organized, and doesn't conform to WP:PG.    M   00:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of most importance to me was the removal of "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

Better a "poorly written, redundant, poorly-organized" page that represents consensus, than a piece of glowing prose that reflects M's personal view.

And don't preach to me about editing courtesy. You've been making undiscussed wholesale changes across numerous naming convention pages for days now, and you're trying to teach me about courtesy? Perhaps you might stop for a moment, and think about the fact that these conventions have evolved through years of extensive discussion and careful compromise, and it is unrealistic to think that everyone is going to agree with your sweeping unilateral changes.

Hesperian 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I waited a long time to says this! I agree with everything that Hesperian has just written, and was going to raise exactly the same point about the removal of "reliable sources in English" and would also add in the section heading in which that text resides which is linked into many pages so people can find the section dealing with "Use[ing] the most easily recognized name". --PBS (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Had you waited a few minutes, that wording would have been replaced once I checked the changes for consistency. I don't disagree with you. Could you not have simply replaced that section, after I was done cleanup, if I accidentally missed it? Instead, you seem to have assumed that I was trying to inject my own "personal view".    M   01:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to improve a page via edits that degrade it, use your sandbox. When you submit a change, your fellow editors are entitled to interpret it as a submitted change. Hesperian 02:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This wrecks the diffs. You immediately reverted 2 minutes after I made the change. You should have waited.    M   02:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Either you want to make your edits in small mouthfuls for your own convenience, in which case you can bloody well do it in your sandbox; or you want to make your edits in small mouthfuls so that they are more easily swallowed by the editors that will scrutinise them, in which case you must accept that editors are entitled to revert on the basis of a diff. If you are going to insist that we wait until you have completely finished before we revert, then you do not intend your intermediate edits to survive scrutiny, and you have no need for diffs. So what is it? Are these intermediate diffs intended for public scrutiny or not? You can't have it both ways, M. Hesperian 02:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can scrutinize them, but could you not have waited more than 0 seconds to act on that scrutiny, almost immediately after I made the change, when it was clear that I was making consecutive changes?    M   19:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasting section

I plan to move the large broadcasting section into its own page, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(broadcasting). Any objections?    M   20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections in principle, but it will mean moving it from policy to a guideline, and perhaps you should ask editors in broadcasting project groups what they think. --PBS (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Both are marked as "naming conventions", which within the scope of this page is a guideline endorsed by this policy. There seems to be no problem here in terms of loss of authority.    M   22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The naming conventions is a policy page, and the others are guidelines, for historical reasons the terminology "conventions" is a little confused, but the content of guidelines are not policy. --PBS (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

From the very start, we have "Aircraft names [edit] Aircraft names are too varied to give full guidelines here; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)." There appears to be no difference between what's listed in that large section, and in the various subpages. Much of the wording confirms this. Moving something to a subpage is simply a matter of length and convenience.    M   22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft names was created before the distinction between the policy and guidelines became as strong as it now is. It was also created like many of the other guidelines before "verifiable reliable sources" was added to this policy, which means that much of it is now a redundant work around for when we used unreliable as well as reliable sources to decide on names. Creating new guidelines today implies informing village pump etc etc ... and I bet others come in with ways to "improve" the text of the new guideline before they will accept it as a new guideline. --PBS (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you fix the wording that says "the only reason we don't list aircraft naming here is because it's too long", then?    M   01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That would not be a fix, because one is policy the other is a guideline. --PBS (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that wording can't be removed because nameconv is a policy and the aircraft conventions are a guideline? I don't follow.    M   01:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Aircraft naming is a good guideline that builds on this naming conventions policy in the correct way. It is much better as a module in the whole. Those with a specific interest in Aircraft can usually just look at the guideline and decide on the appropriate name, and if they do then it dovetails in nicely with the policy. Those projects that need to name aircraft an maintain it and add any specific examples the need to help them name aircraft. The could reach the same conclusion by reading WP:NAME, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION and the associated guidelines, but the Aircraft naming guideline gives all the relevant information that is easy for a propeller head to understand without wading through lots of irrelevant guff.

As I said above, I have nothing against you creating a broadcasting guideline and moving the text out of this policy, but it will mean moving it from policy to a guideline, and perhaps you should ask editors in broadcasting project groups what they think of the idea because they have to live with it. --PBS (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You're saying that the wording 'aircraft are excluded from this policy only because it is too long' should remain there because of the above? I'm not so much concerned about the broadcasting guideline, but I do wonder about the difference between the guidelines and what is listed here. Can you think of any case where the distinction between which conventions are here and which in their own page has mattered?    M   19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's intended to matter. This page is the core of naming conventions, the stuff we agree on and can apply without exception. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm talking about the #Other specific conventions section.)    M   22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So if some "rule" is stated on this page, as opposed to in a guideline which is linked to from this page, does that make it somehow less likely to have exceptions? Or more agreed on? Or what exactly? And how does this work? (Because the impression one gets reading the list of topic-related conventions is that those that don't appear here are thought too detailed or technical to be presented in full on this page. And the cynical impression one might get from watching activity on this page is that the main criterion for a statement's right to appear on this page is whether Mr Shearer agrees with it or not.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Naming conflict‎ and WP:NC (flora), and my comment above on whether this broadcasting text is here or in a guideline. --PBS (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Things that appear here should have almost everybody agreeing with them; and and everybody includes PBS as well as us.
• We should probably make clear that the topic related section is a See also; as are the other links out. WP:POL recommends making this clear for links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not intended for specialists. They have better sources, and ones not vandalized by junior high school students. When we simply summarize those sources, we are doing better than usual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Does WP:NC defer?

It may be news to some people here that NAME defers to THIS Naming Convention and others by stating that the specifics and rationale are found here. On the other hand, some may agree with it; in either case, comments are welcome at WT:Naming conflict#relations with policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Main principle?

Which of the following is the main principle?

1. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
2. Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, [while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.]
3. Choose a name which most people would expect the article to appear in a reliable source

My suggestion is:

• Wikipedia articles are given the name that the greatest number of English-speaking readers would expect in a reliable source. Naming is for the benefit of readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Currently, #1 seems to be the guiding principle.    M   02:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we leave the section "Use the most easily recognized name" as it is. The wording has remain the same (with the addition of reliable sources over a year ago) since 2002 and it has served us well. --PBS (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to change language I am accustomed to quoting. What benefit does this have? If the change has some benefit, the new wording seems close enough to be a small cost, but what are we getting for it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the advantage of "most people would expect in a reliable source" over "most easily recognized" is that it excludes common vulgarisms and the like, that everyone would recognize, but we wouldn't want used in an encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the concerns about changing the main wording stem more from a concern for losing it among the rest of the policy. There are some problems, pointed out at WT:Naming conflict, regarding inappropriate names (like "Gypsy"). The main principle isn't quite that we choose the most common name, but that we choose the most common name expected of a reliable source.

...what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize [in a reliable source] with the minimum of ambiguity...

(We could then remove the word "generally" that precedes this section.) It's already true in practice that we do not always choose the most common name, but we do choose the one readers expect in a reliable source.    M   19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please choose another example Gypsy is not an inappropriate term in British English. See this explanation. The term is widely used in reliable sources in the UK. --PBS (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The one I always have in mind (though I don't like to keep saying it aloud) is that we don't move Feces to Shit.--Kotniski (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Up to last year the wording in the section "Use the most easily recognized name" was separate from any other policy on Wikipeia, largely because when it was formulated there was little in the way of policy on Wikipedia. A problem with the term "reliable source", is that it is not defined in this policy, but is instead delegated via a link to WP:V is it always true that what are reliable source for content (as defined under WP:SOURCES) the same as reliable sources for names? --PBS (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be defined, and it shouldn't be defined since it's not talking about reliable sources. The intended meaning is that an encyclopedia should use formal-like names, because that's what people expect and will be looking for. We might just say "...would most easily recognize in an encyclopedia with...", how about that?    M   21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still a bit shorthandish - people would recognize vulgarisms whether they saw them in an encyclopedia or elsewhere. There are really two points: we use names people recognize and we use names of a register appropriate to an encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why I suggested "that the greatest number of English-speaking readers would expect in a reliable source[/encyclopedia]". I still very much prefer it over my other suggestions, but there is an objection that it drastically changes wording that's been quoted for a while now (though I think it's outdated).    M   22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Encyclopaedia" is defiantly not the way to go the last think we need, see WP:V "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." how long before someone puts in a AfD based on the argument that there is no such term in any other encyclopaedia and justifies the AfD on this proposed change? Don't get me wrong I am not necessarily objection to "reliable source", it is just that I am leary of unforeseen consequences of altering the wording that has existed unchanged for many years (marry in haste and repent at leisure). So I want several sets of eyes to consider the proposed wording before making up my mind if it is the way forward. --PBS (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm again having a bit of trouble understanding what you mean. You seem to be saying something about deleting articles, which has nothing to do with naming them. And how many sets of eyes do you need? Is there a time frame? Because there's the danger that editors who have even the most trivial changes reverted until "some eyes" come along might give up trying to work with you and leave before that happens.    M   22:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If this policy says that the name must be encyclopaedic then some people will use that to justify AfDing articles they do not like because it does not appear in any other encyclopaedia, and that it is therefore against policy because the name of an article is in breach of the naming conventions policy. This is now a foreseen problem!

It ain't broke at the moment. No one has suggested that the current wording has caused problems with the creation of articles. What is being suggested here is a fetteling of the wording, as such there is no hurry to implement it and we do not need to hurry. Changing policies for no pressing reason, tends to lead to instability (because the changes cause unforeseen problems, or because it turns out there is not a consensus to do so, or because once a change is made people like to tinker further). With such a venerable core of the policy we should only change it if there is a wide consensus to do so. --PBS (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "readers expect" is quite right still - perhaps most readers would expect Bill Clinton to be called William, but we still call him Bill and hope their surprise will be a pleasant one.--Kotniski (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a negative then - we won't use a name that would be unexpected in a reliable source/encyclopedia? Bill is not unexpected, but Shit is.    M   22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. Perhaps there's a better way to say it, but that's what I was getting at.--Kotniski (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this differ materially from "use what reliable sources use"? We know that reliable sources aren't expected to use Shit, because they don't. And we should always consider how POV pushers will abuse policy: "Darn it all, I expect truly reliable sources to [adopt my point of view].Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The original question was about principle, which might well be reader-oriented (i.e. "least surprise") rather than source-oriented ("conform!"). But I agree that we need to end up at "use what reliable source use" not "use what we expect reliable sources to use". Hesperian 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the point about "least surprise" is important. All other points aside, if a reader enters qwxry and gets an article that is not what they wanted they are surprised. If that happens a for a significant number of entries, or would be anticipated for a significant number of entries, then the article at that place probably is not the right one. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Or similarly (and perhaps more to the point in most naming debates) if they get the article they wanted, but it carries an odd name, they will also be surprised - and more importantly, perhaps confused or misinformed (depending on the situation).--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to make this change This change then we may as well get rid of "The underlying principle is that" and just have "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." --PBS (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. There's also something odd about the statement "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what reliable sources call the subject." It's as if we're trying to pretend that reliable source use implies recognizability (that two guiding principles are really one), which isn't the case in the real world.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording was added last year and it had/has the advantage that it did not touch the original wording. Remember that when it was added there were a limited number of editors involved in the conversation and there could be no grantee that a wider consensus existed at the time for such a radical addition. For example Born2cycle has several times mentioned that he doe not approve of it. It was introduced to get around the problem with people trawling the internet and finding many unreliable sources (as defined in WP:SOURCES) and arguing that was the name we should put an article under. This caused all sorts of problems, eg differences between name and content (because content can only use reliable sources), and lots of specialist exceptions in the guidelines to work around the use of non reliable sources, both of these problems were fixed with this addition.

Now that the sentence has been in place for over year and part of the accepted consensus, we could consider integrating the two sentences -- I thought that was in part what this discussion was about. But I am not sure it is necessary or desirable, but I'am open minded on the issue. --PBS (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose what we are trying to say is something like "recognizable by readers who are familiar with reliable sources on the subject".--Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "and for a general audience over specialists", I disagree with that. The name of an article should be optimised to be as acceptable as possible to as much of its audience as possible. If an article doesn't have a "general audience", then choosing a name that is optimised for an audience that the article doesn't have, is silly.

To take an extreme example, suppose we have an article on a topic so highly technical and utterly esoteric that only ten people in the world will ever bother to read it; and all ten of those people are leading specialists in the field. In that case, we would/should be seeking a title that would be acceptable to as many of those ten readers as possible.

It is possible that what I am saying here is precisely what our principle is driving at: that we should choose a name that is accessible to the many (i.e. all ten), rather than catering to the few (i.e. the one or two who have the most expertise, or who are the biggest pedants). If so, then we need to rephrase, since my example is difficult to reconcile with the phrase "general audience over specialists".

Hesperian 23:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian has it exactly wrong. The very notion of a Wikipedia article not having a general audience is preposterous, since a requirement of entry in Wikipedia is notability, which implies the existence of the very general audience that is hypothesized above to not exist for a phantom topic.

When a topic only has a technical name, then that is what must be used. Sure. But when a topic has both a technical name used by specialists within the field, as well as a common name that is more likely to be recognized and used by non-specialists to refer to the same topic, then the latter is supposed to be given preference in naming the Wikipedia article about that topic. That's the whole point.

It should be noted that for a given topic, most reliable sources may be written by specialists and so the technical terminology may seem to be more commonly used when looking at WP:GOOGLE results. But that should not preclude use of the name more likely to be recognized by a general (non-specialist) audience as the title of the article about that topic. I wish there was a way to consult only general publications, like the NY Times, Time and Newsweek, to determine most common usage among the general audience for a given topic, without having to search each one individually. Anyway...

Yes, this cornerstone notion of Wikipedia flies in the face of guidelines adopted by the editors of certain categories of articles despite their blatant contradicting of this notion that is fundamental to Wikipedia, but that's a separate (through obviously closely related) issue. Some day hopefully all that will be fixed and all of Wikipedia will be unified with respect to this basic principle of naming.

In the mean time, we need to get the policy clearly stated so as to minimize these types of misinterpretations. This proposal seems to be a step in the right direction. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"The very notion of a Wikipedia article not having a general audience is preposterous, since a requirement of entry in Wikipedia is notability." As you know, notability is not defined as "having a general audience". It is defined in terms of coverage in reliable sources. The rest of what you have written doesn't actually address what I have said. Hesperian 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notability is not explicitly defined as ""having a general audience", but it's clearly there by implication.

This is the general notability guideline from WP:N: if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article (my emphasis). Here it implies the importance of a general audience by referring to "sources that are independent of the subject" -- sources much more likely to be encountered by a non-specialized general audience -- over specialized ones that would not be "independent of the subject". For example, how Time magazine refers to a plant should get higher priority than how a botanical guide refers to that plant, and, arguably, the subject should not even have an article in Wikipedia if the subject is only referenced in specialized sources that are not independent of the subject.

I mean, if not to address relevance to a general audience, then what is the point of giving priority to "sources that are independent of the subject" when determining notability? Does it really need to be spelled out explicitly? Maybe so.

If there is no general audience for a given topic, then that topic is not notable by implication, if not by definition, and should not even be in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is all a load of complete and utter bollocks.

An author doesn't cease to be independent of a subject merely by dint of writing about it, else every edit to Wikipedia would be a conflict of interest, by virtue of having been written by someone who wrote it. The idea that one cannot use Nature as a source for articles about nature is both hilarious and tragically stupid. Perhaps you also think that vertebrate should also protected against editing by vertebrates? Seriously, go over to WP:NOTABILITY and try and get endorsement for your outlandish interpretation, before peddling it here.

The answer to your question "what is the point of giving priority to sources that are independent of the subject" is that it is intended to address sources that were written by the subject, or the subject's wife, or the subject's media agent, or anyone who stands to benefit from promotion of the subject. Essentially the notability policy is saying that you cannot confer notability on yourself by writing about yourself, or getting your agent to write about you. And you cannot confer notability on your product or service by publishing advertising.

No thanks to you for burying my serious and sensible comment under a screed of utter nonsense. Again.

Hesperian 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he had a point. But I don't think this is really an issue - if a subject doesn't have a general audience, then it won't have a general-audience-oriented name, so the issue of optimizing for a general audience won't arise in that case (at least as far as the article name is concerned).--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What point? That all technical subjects are non-notable? Or that there is no such thing as sources that are independent of their subject? Hesperian 10:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither. Nothing I wrote made either of those points. I did not say that all technical subjects are non-notable. I didn't even say that there are definitely some technical subjects that are non-notable (though I allowed for that possibility). I also did not say there is no such thing as sources that are independent of their subject. I even gave examples of of sources that are typically independent of whatever subject they are covering, like Time magazine.

My point is that a premise of your objection - that topics without a general audience exist in Wikipedia ("If an article doesn't have a "general audience", then ...") - is absurd since by implication such topics would not be notable. Can you give an example of even one WP article with a topic that does not have a general audience and is not a candidate for deletion for lack of notability?

I write such articles all the time; a recent example is effective selfing model. General audience: No. Notable: Yes. Hesperian 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While Kotniski's point is true that for a hypothetical topic without a general audience there would be no general audience name, Hesperian's disagreement is with the part of the guideline that calls for optimizing naming "for a general audience over specialists", which of course can only apply when there are at least two competing names (if the name used and most likely to be recognized by specialists and by the general audience is identical, this aspect of the guideline has no application). That's the real reason Hesperian objects to this wording... in those situations he wants to see naming optimized for specialists over what a general audience uses and is most likely to recognize, which is exactly opposite of the underlying naming principle adopted and reflected both explicitly and implicitly throughout Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Hesperian 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another oddity is that we have the section "Use the most recognized name", closely followed by the general convention "Use common names of persons and things" - and these two sections seem to be basically saying the same thing, except that they do it differently (the second one makes no mention of reliable sources, although the detailed guideline it links to does). Can we somehow reconcile this into something coherent?--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope the other way around, those two statements are direct opposites and as a result have lead to many move discussions and interesting results. If readers call something by an English common name, say cow dog and the experts and journals call it bovine cannis, or whatever, which name do we use? Clearly the first is generally the most recognized name to most readers even if is also known as the second. Now if I restrict readers to the experts in the field, then the second name is the most common. Scientific journals use the scientific name so there is clear sourcing for the scientific name. That is simply a fact. That in no way establishes that name as the common name for all readers, no matter how many journal articles there are. As a reader of the article like that, I would expect to see it at that name with an introduction of something like 'A cow dog (scientific name:bovine cannis} is...' Of course the scientific info boxes now need a current education or a specialized education to even read them, which proves that using stuff from there to name the article may be a bad idea. Also, the fact that there may be several common names used, does not mean that one of them does not qualify as the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I think "common name" needs to be clarified to state that more dominant usage of a name in specialized reliable sources should not trump favoring a name more easily recognized by a general audience, and that specialized guidelines should not contradict this either. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with that. There is already a creeping use of latin as article names for species of plants, animals and birds, which needs reversing. Examples include Calluna for heather; Ulex europaeus for gorse; Armeria maritima for thrift; Thymus serpyllum for thyme; Tuberaria guttata for spotted rock rose and Teloschistes for golden hair lichen. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

These examples are all horribly ambiguous:

• When people say heather they usually mean Erica not Calluna, though sometimes they mean Cassiope or Harrimanella. If our article on Calluna belongs at heather, where does Erica belong?
• gorse is already the title of our article on the genus Ulex. And you're complaining that U. europaeus is at its scientific name instead of at gorse? As if that it is some kind of anti-common name conspiracy that the more prominent article is already taking the common name you want?
• thrift is not only ambiguous in general, but ambiguous as the name of a plant. The Thrift (plant) redirect doesn't even point at Armeria maritima.
• We already have an article at thyme, about the herb, which derives from Thymus vulgaris. Thymus serpyllum is one of several species of Wild Thyme. You would move it to thyme? Bloody ridiculous.
• "Golden hair lichen" is Teloschistes flavicans, a species; the article is about a genus.

I doubt a single one of your proposals would get up, and not because of any opposition to common names. They would fail because they take no account whatsoever of very serious ambiguity problems.

Hesperian 23:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point Hesperian. Firstly I made no proposal for renaming, simply pointed out examples where the article is extremely difficult to find for the average reader who doesn't have specialist botanical knowledge. My subjects are geography and history, not botany, and I struggle to link articles to the botanical pages in Wikipedia, even using the help of sources such as Natural England, the Countryside Agency and various national park authorities. I get the impression that certain editors want to keep those pages the private preserve of an exclusive cabal and positively discourage readers from other fields trampling on "their" territory. Maybe that isn't what is intended; it is, however, how it comes across. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You have difficulty finding these articles because the common names that you know are horribly ambiguous. You have no proposal for fixing the problem. You prefer to sling accusations of cabalism from a safe distance. Hesperian 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. You have difficulty finding Thymus serpyllum because you know it as "thyme", a horribly vague and ambiguous common name. I acknowledge the problem. I see the difficulty. I have a reasonable understanding of the situation. I am eager to help. What can I do? Hesperian 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There, it only took 4 minutes for you to calm down. It's not that I know it as "thyme"; it's that authoritative government and quasi-governmental sources know it as "thyme". It's even used in the citations for international recognition of protected areas. The way that we get round the ambiguity problem for birds, animals or fish is to determine the most common name in English, even though that may generate some discussion and controversy (the gray seal versus grey seal debate). But at least most of us can comprehend a heading such as European Robin or Manx Shearwater, whereas Erithacus rubecula or Puffinus puffinus are meaningless to us. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You have difficulty finding Thymus serpyllum because you know itit is known as "thyme", a horribly vague and ambiguous common name. I acknowledge the problem. I see the difficulty. I have a reasonable understanding of the situation. I am eager to help. What can I do? Hesperian 01:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I and a few others have been trying to convince plant editors like Hesperian that these Latin-preferring plant naming conventions are inconsistent with WP naming policy, guidelines and conventions, to no avail. They often rely on the predominance of usage of the Latin name in "reliable sources" (mostly specialized material, of course) and the fact that just using the Latin names is easier since the taxonomy is already comprised of unique names and all worked out, while many plants often have multiple English "common names" (never mind that this puts the interests of editors above those of readers). The enlightened view you represent has not been able to achieve majority support yet, much less consensus. There are quite a few editors who believe, for various reasons, that specialized guidelines should be able to trump the general ones. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If I could put my 2 cents in, there just is no one size fits all do it this way guideline or policy that can be written that will satisfy everyone, in my opinion. There are what, 2 million articles, with 2 million names, and while we can generally agree on some common principles, I would not get bent out of shape over trying to come up with a standard that must be applied. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to the inevitable exceptions on an individual article basis. It's the wholesale dismissal of common principles in the naming of hundreds and thousands of articles in certain categories that is the problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Might we start implementing the changes that we do agree on?    M   22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Given Hesperian's objection to giving preference to general readers over specialists, what changes do we agree on? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I endorse giving preference to general readers over specialists, as long as both general readers and specialists is interpreted in the context of the article. An article on a highly esoteric piece of mathematics, which will only ever be read by maths grads, has a general audience of maths grads. Our principle must be be to cater to those who will actually read the article, not the man in the street who will not. I believe, and Kotniski confirms, that this is indeed the correct reading of the principle. Unfortunately the wording also lends itself to an interpretation that we should cater to the lowest common denominator, even when titling article that the LCD will never read. Hesperian 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What? What about anyone who gets to the article by clicking on WP:RANDOM, or some other link within Wikipedia? You seem to be suggesting that each article needs to target a different audience? The subset of the "general reader" that are most likely to read that article?

Again, do you have an actual example of such an article ("a highly esoteric piece of mathematics, which will only ever be read by maths grads") within Wikipedia that is not a candidate for deletion? By the way, if you actually come up with one, I promise I will read it, thus nullifying your "will only ever be read by maths grads" premise since I'm not a maths grad. These incredible rationalizations are creative, I'll give you that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked broadly the same question above, and I answered it. Reading an article to prove me wrong, does not make you part of the article's general audience. Nor does arriving at the title via WP:RANDOM, reading the first sentence, realising you lack the context to get anything out of the article, then WP:RANDOMing off elsewhere. Hesperian 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, I missed your answer above. I disagree with your characterization of your Effective selfing model article. I would say that it is written for the general reader (not just for maths grads). That is, it's written at the level that would be appropriate for, say, the typical National Geographic reader. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want a maths-specific example, most of the outlinks from Lie group will serve. To choose one more or less at random: G-structure. I assert that it would be impossible and pointless to try to address such a topic at the man in the street: you would have to include gigabytes of background in order to get the point across. The only reasonable way to write such an article is to recognise that the topic is of interest only to people that already have the required background (i.e. maths grads), and pitch the article at them. For such an article, the title we select should be optimised for the general audience of the article, which is maths grads. Kotniski makes the point that there won't be a man-in-the-street title for such concepts, and I accept that. My point is addressed at how we articulate the principle of "general audience over specialists". Hesperian 00:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But we have gigabytes of background; that's what links are for. When we become publishable, a reader will go from G-structure down to manifold (and possibly from there to dimension, although Manifold does a really good job even now) and find the necessary explanations (and so on with all the other links as necessary). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But how we compensate for omitting reams of background is immaterial. The fact is that we have to omit reams of background when writing esoteric articles like this. This is precisely equivalent to assuming our readers possess, or are able to take possession of, that background.

If it is appropriate to write articles under the assumption that readers will possess certain necessary background knowledge, surely it is also appropriate to select the article title under the same assumption! Hesperian 01:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

H, that's a better example. I admit it's over my head. However, the part of the guideline we're talking about, "Naming is for the benefit of ... a general audience over specialists." has no application in such an example, since the naming is no different whether we're aiming to benefit a general audience or specialists. This distinction only applies when the name is different depending on who we're aiming to benefit, and I submit an article whose topic has names that differ so can and should be written for the general audience, and named accordingly (e.g., hence "Joshua tree" and not "Yucca brevifolia"). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re your "has no application" comment, Kotniski has already made this point, and I accept it. As you say, the "general audience over specialists" clause is not likely to find an application to such a topic. I'll need time to digest the rest of what you have said. Hesperian 01:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:M what changes do you think we have agreed upon? --PBS (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the article that only ten people will understand?

As I said above, we are not written for the ten people who understand Upper Foolandish passive tenses or outer semi-continuous homological algebra [both names intended to be equal spoofs]; they have a small journal, where they write research papers for each other, and no junior high students are allowed to vandalize it. In such cases, our articles are intended to explain the subject to somebody who would like to become the eleventh. Now this may itself require that the reader is not just off the street, but can breeze through the preliminary articles on Foolandish grammar or unadjectived homological algebra; but readers should not be expected to know things only the ten know to be sure they're at the right article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this applies to any plant large and common enough to have a widely used English name anyway; what branch of botany is so recondite? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, particularly: "our articles are intended to explain the subject to somebody who would like to become the eleventh". Exactly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone so utterly confused and angered at the sight of Yucca brevifolia when they typed in Johusa tree that they close the page and never speak of it again is not really someone who has any aspirations of being the eleventh. You're confusing two ideas here I think - content and name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Confused? We're talking about article names here, and, in particular (using your example), whether using a name like "Joshua Tree" or a name like "Yucca brevifolia" is optimizing the article name for general readers over specialists. What are you talking about? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, you have misread me on a critical point. I didn't say only ten people will understand. I said only ten people will ever bother to read it. Yet you make a distinction that might prove helpful:

Think of the very few people who already understand the article content as specialists. Think of the broader group of people who want to understand the article content as general audience. My assertion is that "general audience over specialists" should be understood in that context; that is, in the context of the particular article, bearing in mind that the audience is "not just off the street". My concern is that "general audience" and "specialists" can be misconstrued as "anyone and everyone who might WP:RANDOM onto this page" and "anyone who has sufficient background to actually engage with the article" respectively.

Hesperian 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think other encyclopedias are written with different reading audiences in mind for each article? Or even for certain areas of the encyclopedia? I don't think it's fair to say "general audience" means "anyone off the street". We know we're talking about people literate in English and who have enough interest (and thus intelligence) to look up stuff in an online encyclopedia. That's the general audience, and it's generally the same for every Wikipedia article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Having read most of the World Book Encyclopedia in the 1960s, I can guarantee that there was effectively a different reading audience for each article, whether it was intended or not.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Whereas I must agree with Hesperian's definitions, but not the conclusion he draws. Even in his terms, Yucca brevifolia is like describing a group as a special kind of one-point category, a genuinely useful locution in the faculty lounge, but not recommended for entering undergraduates - and most of our articles are not hierarchical; they do have everyone off the street who can read literate English as their general audience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is where we disagree. Do you assert that it is possible and desirable to rewrite G-structure so that it is just as accessible to a general audience (by your definition) as Pikachu? Hesperian 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that, as it stands, it will never make it to Good article or Featured article. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't have enough useless footnotes; that's a problem with Futile Aggravation, not the article, whose sources are clearly indicated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think that it is possible and desirable to rewrite G-structure so that it is accessible to anyone literate in English? Hesperian 01:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If they're willing to go through enough hyperlinks, yes. The people who wrote G-structure learned enough to write it through a not dissimilar process, presumably with printed books. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

By that standard, inaccessibility loses all meaning. I could walk into any library, pluck a book off a shelf, and start reading. If it is goes over my head, I'll just randomly pick some other book, and read that instead. If I carry on doing this for a few million year, I'll read enough to build a really good understanding of the topic of the original book, so that when I return to it, I'll understand it. If it turns out to error-riddled incoherent garbage, I will immediately recognise it as such. And yet, by your definition, that error-riddled incoherent garbage will have achieved its goal of educating me on the topic. Hesperian 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked about possibility. Have we achieved this? No. Will we achieve this? Some time after we obtain a perfect 100% fix for vandalism. But if the possibility were realized, it wouldn't take billions of hyperlinks; maybe a thousand; no more than would be required to read your way through a few textbooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But the real point is: Nothing in Yucca brevifolia requires that sort of preparation - except the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Way to put the issue succinctly, PMA. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

... except that I have not at any point put forward Y. brevifolia as an example here, nor tied what I've been saying to the flora naming convention in any way. Hesperian 03:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've managed to avoid explicitly tying anything to the flora convention here, but the rationalizations you've put forward in objection here are transparent (and weak). --Born2cycle (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You just carry on beating that straw man then. Hesperian 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Books don't have links. Wikipedia is very different in that respect. A well-written Wikipedia article, with proper links, should be accessible to the general reader, assuming the articles linked (and those they link) are as well, and ultimately convey whatever is necessary for the general reader to ultimately understand the original article. But, again, I think this is all moot because the part of the guideline to which you've objected probably never applies to names of the topics of the small minority of articles of the kind we're discussing here. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Books do have links. You just can't click on them. Hesperian 02:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only can you not click on them, but, unless you're sitting in an unusually well stocked library, and assuming they're not checked out, the referenced materials in books are probably not immediately available. The real-time learning experience provided by Wikipedia, and internet hyperlinks in general, is unparallelled in human history. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding tree-of-life names- birds all have a recognised capitalised common name, mammals have common names though I do not think the names have been as regimented as birds, but as one moves down through reptiles and fish there can be a profusion of vernaular names. Similarly plants - for instance, many trees have specific vernacular names which differ between carpentry, horticulture and conservation, and the majortiy lack any common names whatsoever. Our aim above accessibility is exactness and correctness of meaning, hence use of redirects and disambig pages :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody ever said or implied it's easy on editors to put the interests of readers first. Oftentimes it means hashing out the most appropriate name from a number of decent choices, and that can be trying and difficult. But, I for one, think it's worth it. With plants the temptation to forgo all that and instead just use the Latin name from the scientific taxonomy for flora is understandable, but doing so flies in the face of what Wikipedia naming is all about. In fact, as an unintended bonus, one of the benefits of Wikipedia is precisely the way it establishes what the most common name in English for a given topic is - based on what the title of the WP article about that topic is. When we skip this sometimes painful process, we fail to deliver on this benefit. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)