Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

---

Rationales lost?

I came around looking for the reasons behind our "Use Common Names" guideline, and they appear to have been lost in the merge. Was this intentional? Powers ^T 13:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Which rationales do you mean? At the moment I see the first section of the page ("Deciding an article name") as providing sufficient rationale for everything. But feel free to restore anything that got lost if it's of value and not redundant. --Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That does seem to cover most of it, I guess. The previous text was more focused toward why common names (specifically) are important and why simply using redirects isn't always sufficient. Hard to say if or how that should be added. Powers ^T 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the below discussion, I think it's important that this page mention that the presence of redirects is no substitute for properly titling an article. Powers ^T 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And related to that is that objections to a more common name being used based on it being insufficiently precise are irrelevant when that more common name already redirects to the article anyway. For example, below, it is argued that Polio should not be used for the title of the article about the disease because it may refer to the virus as well as the disease. That's irrelevant because the disease is so clearly the main use of Polio that it has redirected to that article for years. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How recent changes are being interpreted

What has been created here with the recent changes is a completely useless policy, for anyone can read into it anything they want.

"Yes, COMMONNAME is 'policy', but that policy was just massively re-written with the claim that COMMONNAME is merely one principle among many. The full policy says, in the second sentence, that it's "supplemented by guidelines that advise on how to apply the principles set out here and on managing conflicts between them." We have a conflict between COMMONNAME and WP:NC#Precision, which (to hear the story that the people re-writing the policy were putting forward) is a co-equal principle with COMMONNAME. " [1]

WP:NC now provides about as much as guidance as it would if this entire page was blank. This is ridiculous. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens. That's even worse than the opposition to moving George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. Powers ^T 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The opposition there makes me seriously suspicious that many of the parties involved aren't even vaguely familiar with WP's naming conventions past or present. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me there's no reasoned opposing argument there except from one loud individual. But the problem behind that seems to be not with this page, but with WP:NC (royalty and nobility), which has already given us ridiculous titles like Victoria of the United Kingdom. We can't have a specific-topic guideline applied like that one is, i.e. without admitting the possibility of exceptions when there's an obvious common name.--Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that's already the case: the various sub-guidelines are strictly supplemental to the main naming guideline, and should only be used in the case of obvious problems there. Quite why the royalty sub-guideline has been applied in preference to WP:COMMONNAME is various places is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely its now the policy we had to have, hasnt this been the purpose of the last two years to enable editors to do what ever they want without consideration to commonsense. Gnangarra 21:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand Whatamidoing's oppose, but it's kind of irrelevant as several others have pointed out the correct reasons for not moving the page. It's an abbreviation, it's not precise, and it's not encyclopaedic. Your claim that Wikipedia is not encyclopaedic with regards to naming is absurd, I'm afraid. In any case, we'll see how consensus works out. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this argument, but I'd say you should check what other encyclopedias use to refer to a given term, like the Brittanica, before you declare what is or is not encyclopedic. At any rate, naming in Wikipedia has always been less formal than most encyclopedias, in order to convey common usage and make it easy to use. Finding and linking to Polio is much easier and more natural than Poliomyelitis; that is the way of Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, but please read the rest of the opposition. The term polio is an abbreviation as someone pointed out, and it's also unspecific as I've pointed out to you. The term 'polio' refers to the virus, not the disease; 'myelitis' is essential to the title in order to describe the disease, not just the virus. But you're right, let's take this discussion there instead. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again I urge anyone who cares about consistency in Wikipedia to pay attention to what is happening. The effort to restore consistent use of terminology of the general population over specialist terminology is, unfortunately, failing. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poliomyelitis#Requested_move --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop acting like a crybaby, and accept that people have differing views to yours. Persistent cross-posting of links to threads like this can be considered canvassing. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I post where I think it's relevant to post. There are two related issues. One is the general problem of this policy being watered down -- by specialized guidelines that contradict the general principles here taking precedence -- to the point of being useless, which is very relevant to this page, and the other is specific problems that result because of this. Poliomyelitis is an example of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What I see is folk citing WP:COMMONNAME as though that is the policy. It isn't. Article naming is sometimes complex. There are approaches that work generally, and approaches that work for certain fields, and there are exceptions. The page-move discussion above refers to a page which has been called poliomyelitis since it was created January 2002, edited by more than 1000 editors, and has achieved FA. If that's not a consensus that perhaps there's nothing much wrong with the name, I don't know what is. There are more productive uses of our time that using this policy page to "fix" what isn't broken. Colin°^Talk 21:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to ditch COMMONNAME, then let's ditch it and be done with it. Frankly, I can't think of any reason to have it if we redirect the widely known and used polio to the virtually unknown (outside of the specialized areas) poliomyelitis rather than the other way around.

Most of the people editing an article like that are likely to be specialists and accustomed to the specialists' terminology. So just because it made it through all those years without much of a challenge does not mean much, though it reveals why we have reminders like "the choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." in our naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As a non-expert "general reader", who has contributed to that article (rather than just argue about what it should be called) I prefer my encyclopaedia to tell me the proper name for something. You know, when editing and discussing policy pages starts to seem a pointless exercise, it is a good idea to unwatch them and go write some content. I do that from time to time and it improves my mood no end (I'm not saying this to shut you up, btw, just that I found it helpful myself). /unwatching Colin°^Talk 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Born2cycle quotes me above in an effort to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd like to remind him that I was one the participants in the very long discussions about re-writing this policy, and that I'm accurately reporting what I -- and he -- was told on this very page, in very specific discussions about whether "use common names" was supposed to trump all other conventions. Typical responses included statements like "It articulates a principle: one of several." Born2cycle consistently favored the primacy of common names through this discussion, and his position was just as consistently rejected by a wide majority of editors, including both those that favored and didn't favor the major changes made this fall. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I favor the primacy of all principles over rules that contradict them. I favor principles laid out so that they are consistent with each other, rather than contradict each other. I believe the principles listed here, except for "similar articles should have similar titles", essentially do that. I understand the need for individual exceptions, on an article-by-article basis. I don't understand what's wrong with this position, or why anyone would disagree with it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you get the idea that WP:COMMONNAME isn't policy? Or that it was somehow subordinate to the sub-guidelines? The sub-guidelines exist to ensure that we fall back to consistency should the general guidelines fail: they have never and ideally will never take precedence over the general guidelines. It seems to have become fashionable of late for various enclaves on Wikipedia to attempt to opt out of global consensus, which should be very firmly pushed back upon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, when we had an RfC on this (I forget how many months ago it was), we lost. People all like their own little guidelines and don't want anyone coming brandishing general principles at them. I've suggested before (since this seems to be a constant topic of debate on this page) that we ought to make another proposal along the same lines - that common names take precedence whatever the specific guidelines say - worded in such a way that the wider community can accept it. Until that happens, there's not much point our crying into our milk on this talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The wider community does accept it, and it's still how the policy is worded. And indeed, outside of a handful of troublesome pages (and the handful of troublesome groups who control them) it works perfectly well. That's why this is more of an annoyance than a sky-falling-down problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, until Kotniski's work on merging many related pages into this one a few days ago, WP:UCN really was "just" a guideline. See last week's version.

The RfCs were in September, and there was pretty wide agreement that common name was not a magic trump card. I doubt that the actual community consensus has changed much in those intervening few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There was always a use common names section in the policy, though, so it's not like the idea's suddenly been promoted from guideline to policy (only the additional explanation that was on the guideline page has been merged in here to make everything clearer). Personally I think all this policy vs. guideline debate is just an annoyance that makes it that little bit harder to present the information clearly. --Kotniski (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop calling this a policy

When a "policy" is so written that it is full of so much ambiguity and contradiction that it can be used to justify just about any position within its intended scope, it ceases to be useful. I believe this policy page has reached that point.

I challenge anyone to identified a move proposed prior to this date of this comment for which both sides cannot be reasonably supported by this policy. My contention is that this policy is so muddled that it can be used to support just about any reasonable name for any article, and so ultimately provides no guidance whatsoever.

If editors are unwilling to agree on self-consistent system of naming principles and rules, this policy page has no utility and serves no purpose that furthers Wikipedia. Continuing to refer to this meaningless page as "policy" is a farce. I propose we stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly be happy for it to be reclassified as a guideline. I wouldn't say it was muddled, but it gives guidance rather than hard-and-fast rules (and rightly so, given the varying criteria the WP community has always tended to apply when making naming decisions). --Kotniski (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

if the policy disagrees with what one wants, change the policy when the changes still dont make policy the way one wants it, stop calling it a policy. Just maybe its time consider another approach like, I dont know maybe stop trying to rewrite policy based on single issues instead write based on what is happening. Gnangarra 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Writing policy based on what is happening" is exactly what has caused this current useless mess. It's like arguing that murder and rape should be made legal because that is "what is happening". Guidance, to be useful, should be based on what consensus is about what should happen, not merely be a reflection of what is happening. If you do the latter, you're doomed to spiral down a path to uselessness and pointlessness, as this "policy" page so aptly demonstrates.

Kotniski, calling this page a "guideline" would be as much of a farce as calling it a policy, for it provides no guidance whatsoever. That is, it provides guidance in support of just about any conceivable reasonable position about naming, which is the practical equivalent of providing no guidance.

At best it's an essay, and a rather lousy one at that, because ultimately it says nothing. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, this thing does not even meet the criteria of an essay, which is defined as "the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which ...". It's an incoherent hodgepodge of opinions and advice. Perhaps each opinion and piece of advice needs to be broken out into a separate essay, and maybe some of those still meet the criteria for guideline or policy. But this hodepodge is a complete disaster. Perhaps the only solution is to delete it (after salvaging what we can from the individual pieces). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as incoherent. It explains the different criteria that are applied in different (or sometimes the same) situations to decide on article names. It specifically and rightly says that these criteria are sometimes contradictory and need to be weighed against each other. Having all the criteria on one page helps make that fact clear to readers. Can you find any actual contradictions in what it says on this page? If so, we can try to find a way to eliminate them.--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Let's start with "common name" and "similar articles should have similar titles". Or how about, "It is supplemented by guidelines that advise on how to apply the principles set out here and on managing conflicts between them." I can't find one coherent definitive uncontradicted statement on this page about anything that could possibly serve as any kind of clear guidance on anything. Yes, it clearly states it contradicts itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean about "common name" and "similar articles..." (which isn't what it says now anyway)? We've been through this about a thousand times - these are two criteria which sometimes come into conflict, and when they do, consensus decides how to balance. You don't like it, I don't particularly like it, but it's not contradictory: it accurately reflects what happens. The other sentence you quote isn't particularly nice, but I was never successful in rewording it without getting reverted, and anyway it doesn't imply a contradiction; again, it just acknowledges that there are valid factors that sometimes come into competition.--Kotniski (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When one principle indicates one name, and another principle indicates another name, that's not only a conflict, it's a contradiction ("a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other" - m-w.com). "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles" contradicts "Use names and terms most commonly used", "Use terms that readers are most likely to look for ", "Be precise", and "[be] brief".

"It may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another" is inherently conflicting and presupposes contradiction.

"Consensus on naming articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, is stated and explained on the guideline pages referenced" is a blank slate, an open door, to ignore everything stated on this page for any article that is in a "specific field". That contradicts the opening statement of this page, "This naming conventions page sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to name articles." It does no such thing. Not even close. The page, as currently written, sets out nothing. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You exaggerate with "nothing", but yes, it does acknowledge competing/conflicting principles, and it acknowledges that they conflict. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but I don't know what alternative you'd suggest - pretend that some principles don't apply? pretend that they don't sometimes come into conflict? lie that one principle always takes precedence over another? And about these guidelines for specific-topics - unfortunately the community has decided that by and large they should take precedence over general principles. (The old version of the policy said that even more explicitly than it does now.) --Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing "unfortunate" about general principles not being appropriate in all circumstances. In my country GOV:DRIVEONTHELEFT is policy yet every day I must break it to pass parked cars, follow roadwork contraflows and there are times when it doesn't even apply (single-track roads). Life is full of guidelines that must be balanced against one another (think of the high-quality vs short-timescales vs low-cost triangle where one can't have all three at once, or the balance between maximising profit by raising prices against losing customers). What is unfortunate is the rant "WP:COMMONNAME is policy" which directs editors towards one aspect of this policy page to exclusion of any balancing arguments. Common sense and the importance of achieving consensus override all these things. Colin°^Talk 11:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this being policy. The only thing the Polio debate shows is that, much like everywhere else on the Internet, most people don't consider actually reading something to be a prerequisite to arguing over it. The Byron debate is similar, in that the only argument for the current title which holds water is that the Royalty sub-guideline takes precedence over the general guidelines (which it doesn't, but unfortunately this falsehood seems to have become widely held). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify which side of the debate you consider the illiterate folk to be on? And are you referring to reading policy or reading the article? I'd like to know if I'm being insulted. Colin°^Talk 18:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to reading the policy. The naming conventions are really not as difficult as people make out, and the polio debate in particular should be an open and shut case if people actually read and applied the rules that we've had for years. If you want to take my pointing out that you're on the wrong side of this argument personally then there's not much I can do about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you taking a different viewpoint or interpreting policy differently. I do take issue with you accusing folk you disagree with of not having read the policy and therefore engaging in debate from a position of ignorance. I'm able to read the bits that say "should normally follow", "It is supplemented by guidelines", "Most detailed naming advice appears in guidelines relating to articles in specific topic areas", "article names are determined by consensus", "Articles are normally titled using" [my emphasis], "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Occasionally, these may require the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine), "Avoid abbreviations". Perhaps your policy page doesn't contain those words. Perhaps it only contains the words "COMMONNAME" in uppercase shouty style? Perhaps, if 99% of the people in a debate disagree with you, then you need to re-evaluate your position. Colin°^Talk 14:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise: it is indeed perfectly possible to look at the "Explicit conventions" section of the page and to see that as having primacy over COMMONNAME.On that particular subject, I think that section is a wart which needs to be frozen off. It encourages factionalism and disservices our readers by making life more difficult for them. Most of the rest of the page could be readily boiled down to "use the common name, then the least worst alternatives; the sub-guidelines help to establish which alternatives are least worst in particular domains". That is the rule applied to the vast majority of our article titles and works fine. It is certainly not the case that it is broadly disagree with (your "99%" comment). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My 99% comment refers to the polio debate. And, as I noted above, the name wasn't an issue for the over-1000 editors this article has had since January 2002 and for the peer and FA reviewers. I have no problem with CommonName being top among the considerations for naming guidance but it doesn't supersede all other considerations. If it did, we would have Ford, Nissan, Volvo, Phone, Intel, Flu, Baking soda, Belly button and so on. And that's not including all the examples where the common name is a DAB page or an abbreviation like IBM (though BBC seems to have won). In practice our editors balance a preference for "common name" against arguments for "proper name" and "official name" and practical issues like disambiguation. We already discourage "vulgar" names or names that are just abbreviations (for which Polio is a classic example). Perhaps it would help to introduce a "dictionary test" for names one would expect to find in a dictionary. After all, dictionary editors exist to capture current correct language usage, making them a reliable source and certainly one preferable to the amateur Google-search method proposed by this policy. In our example, "polio" fails the dictionary test as it is just a "redirect" in most dictionaries. Colin°^Talk 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't think many of those examples are valid comparisons. "Baking soda" is an Americanism; there are several common names, none particularly primary, so the chemical name is a good choice (especially as it's never referred to by the common names in a chemistry environment). The companies are flat-out wrongly named: there's nothing in WP:NCCORP to legitimise the current names, and every one of them should be moved over its respective redirect. Only "belly button" and "phone" could be seen to be opting for formality over commonality, but in both cases there's a reasonable argument to be made that the short form is genuinely a "vulgarity" which would be out of place in formal English. "Flu" suffers from the same problem as polio does, obviously. As for your "dictionary test", it's contradictory to WP:COMMONNAME and would require a huge change in our attitude towards article naming in general. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't prevent Americanisms or abbreviations or names that are ambiguous and would be better as a DAB, which we agree are unsuitable and mentioned elsewhere on this policy page. Therefore, the WP:COMMONNAME shortcut should be XfD'd and anyone shouting "WP:COMMONNAME is policy" told to go and read the other bits too. phone isn't vulgar. I suspect that if "COMMONNAME" was put up against "PROPERNAME" or "CORRECTNAME" or "OFFICIALNAME" it might not come out so highly or treated with such fundamentalism. An encyclopaedia that wants itself to be taken seriously should grow up a bit and that means being content to use the proper names for words rather than populist. Colin°^Talk 19:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, didn't we have that discussion several years ago when actually forming that policy? COMMONNAME is policy because it is widely considered to be the best solution to a tricky problem (which is particually social and partially technical). And I note the irony in declaring WP:COMMONNAME to be "fundamentalism" while declaring that we must adopt some other naming convention and stick to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This should remain a policy for the reasons I have given before "I think that is answered by the disputes that end up at WP:RM. Most editors who edit in good faith are willing to accept policy trumps guidelines when it comes to making decisions over what applies in Wikipedia. ..." (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 11#Requested_move) -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an argument for this page being policy. Since we've seen that this page certainly doesn't trump the guidelines (rather the reverse in fact, when there's any kind of conflict), it seems rather an argument for it not to be marked as policy.--Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the quote in the archive. -- PBS (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about how this particular page gets categorized, but I don't think that a complaint from an editor that is very noisily losing a requested move debate is sufficient justification. If anyone's serious about this, then I suggest following the procedure over at WP:POLICY#Demotion. Ideally, it would be someone done by an editor whose motives couldn't be put down to sour grapes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How can "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article" be considered a "policy", or even part of a policy. "Normally"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It can be trivially reworded to get around that: "it is policy to consider naming articles by their most common names" or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"But, that would be wrong...." (Sorry about quoting that person, but it would be wrong.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Up above Colin made an interesting point, writing "In my country GOV:DRIVEONTHELEFT is policy yet every day I must break it to pass parked cars, follow roadwork contraflows and there are times when it doesn't even apply (single-track roads).".

The underlying principle is "keep left" ("keep right" in my country), and one of the ways that principle manifests itself is in the "drive on the left side of the road" rule. Here is the key... the rule has exceptions, but not the principle. This is exhibited in each of the examples...

• passing parked cars, roadwork, etc - when certain obstructions effectively narrow the road the principle of "keep left" applies by "keeping left" when reasonable. If you can't drive on the left side of the road due to parked cars or roadwork or whatever, then you have an exception to the rule, but not to the principle, when you cross over to the right side of the road, but still keep left (relative to the available roadway).
• Single-track roads is the context in which the principles of keep right or keep left were originally developed when the only roads were single-track, and the principle only applied when traffic approaching each other from opposite directions had to move aside to pass each other. Obviously if both drivers moved to the same side that wouldn't work, so conventions were developed to either keep left or right, depending on the area. Eventually each country standardized on one way or the other.

But none of these are examples of exceptions to a policy principle. We claim to have identified "principles" in this policy, and yet some of these alleged principles conflict with other ones. It's ridiculous. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather say that the principles "compete" than "conflict" and that common sense and consensus discussions are the way to find the balance. The "principle" in the above analogy is that to avoid collisions, drivers should follow a convention for what lane to be in and for which side to pass other cars on. In practice, each country has its own "rules" (with exceptions) that implement this principle. For too long, COMMONNAME has been shouted as though it is a golden principle. It isn't as there are in practice many reasons it isn't followed (dabs, abbreviations, slang, vulgar, Americanism). I'd like to suggest that some form of PROPERNAME be given consideration (it is already noted within the section) and that Google be officially discouraged as a means of determining what is "common". Google may be useful for some things, but counting usage isn't one of them. This just isn't the purpose of a good search engine, which is to return a selection of appropriate pages, not every bloody one on the planet. Colin°^Talk 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict. The overall principle is that articles should be titled in such a way as to minimise both reader and editor effort. WP:COMMONNAME does this because it is best if people find articles under the very first thing they look for. Maybe I'm missing something in your analogy to roads, but this seems like a perfect fit to me; you might drive on the right sometimes, but only because you didn't have the choice of keeping left and driving off the road was a worst option. Now if you're on a highway with 16 lanes, if you can't use the leftmost one then you're going to pick the least worst alternative (the next one along) rather than simply declaring that right is the new left and switching to lane 16. Or at least that's what the consensus has been for years, outside of a very small minority of articles within certain domains. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The analogy with the roads is that DRIVEONTHELEFT is not and never has been the principle. Just as COMMONNAME never has been a 100% obeyed policy -- just one important factor to consider when trying to find a suitable name. I'm not getting any impression here that deviations from COMMONNAME only affect a "very small minority" of articles. Sure, there are lots of articles that do fit that rule, but they also fit PROPERNAME, etc. Colin°^Talk 12:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "DRIVEONTHELEFT is not... the principle"? It's the principle that we're making an analogy to. Are you suggesting that driving on the left hand side of the road is just a convention or guideline in, say, the UK? And as for your "impression" that deviations from COMMONNAME are commonplace, I'd ask for you to back that up with some evidence as it's an unusual argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity in thinking is a rare gift, and you have it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"…outside of a very small minotiry of articles within certain domains." Aside from disagreement as to "very small", that exception means that WP:COMMONNAME is not policy without the exceptions clause. It used to have an exceptions clause, and it might have then been policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for exceptions or an exception clause. Allowing for exceptions, in principle, means it's no longer a principle. When there is no obvious most common name, or the most common name is not available, using another common name, or the most common name disambiguated, is not an exception, just like driving on the wrong side of the road is not an exception to the "keep left" principle when the left side of the road is obstructed. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is need of an exceptions clause in WP:COMMONNAME, if it were to be policy, as it is not, in fact, policy as accepted by WP:CONSENSUS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP decisions are ultimately made by consensus, but that includes decisions about what naming policy is (and, in particular, whether commonname is a fundamental principle in naming).

I just read the first version of this page, back from 2002 or whatever. Back then it declared, for example, that Mozart should be at Mozart, and not Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart where it is now (unfortunately). However, it also says that Visual Basic programming language should be at that rather than at Visual Basic to distinguish it from spoken/written languages for which the convention was (and still is), Spanish language, but I guess they figured out that was absurd (and violated unnecessary precision). Practically speaking, common name is and has always been the fundamental naming principle in WP, whether it has been explicitly recognized as such or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that we can't have any principles which aren't currently being upheld by random parts of the encyclopedia. To the best of my knowledge, our rules didn't spring fully-formed from the head of Athena: many of them were sanctioned over strong protestations from certain parties. Some are still contentious. It doesn't mean that the principle is invalid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to this unfounded claim that principles must be absolutes without any exceptions. In principle, I am a truthful person. In principle, I am a kind person. In practice, "Do you like my new hairstyle?" cannot always be answered in a way that is simultaneously truthful and kind. The introduction of tactfulness does not mean that I'm untruthful and/or unkind.

No principle should be held absolute. Even pure mother love becomes tyrannical when it is unopposed by justice for those outside the family. Freedom of speech has exceptions for libel. The sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") is appears in the same books as instructions on how to kill criminals, warriors, and even non-combatants that were on the losing side of a war. Justice should be tempered by mercy. Sincerity is tempered by tactfulness. And so forth: Much of our daily lives, and all of our laws, show that there are limits and exceptions to every principle. The existence of this complexity and interdependence does not invalidate the principles.

Wikipedia is no different from the real world in this respect: We should not therefore try to impose an absolute and exception-free character on any policy -- and we simply cannot do that, so long as WP:IAR remains a policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, this pretty well sums up what we've been talking about these past few weeks (and months and years). WP's policy on naming is not to have an absolute policy. There are principles (or criteria or whatever you want to call them) that most of the time work in harmony, but sometimes conflict, and when they conflict, it's consensus rather than any fixed algorithm that decides how to resolve the matter. For me this page is now written in a way that makes it clear that that is the case. The wording can no doubt still be improved, but proposed changes should have the aim of presenting the facts with greater clarity, not concealing facts that we personally don't like.--Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's agree to permanently ban B2C the next time he applies WP:COMMONNAME against WP:CONSENSUS. That's the only way that declaring this as policy will be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a constructive suggestion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I, but it's another example of the "policy violations get you banned, but guidelines can be safely flouted" error. Behavioral standards, whether they're "policy" (WP:EW) or "guidelines" (WP:DE) or even "essays" (WP:TE) are cited for blocks. A large number of non-behavioral policies have zero sanctions associated with them (WP:V, for example: have you ever seen someone blocked for just failing to provide a citation?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle's examples above are a classic case of how COMMONNAME is not viable as an absolute naming rule. There are just too many examples of where another name is better -- one that avoids ambiguity, or that avoids us looking like we're writing the Ladybird Encyclopeadia for Kids (which is the only place I'd expect to find an encyclopeadia article called "Mozart"). The actual name we choose actually has very little bearing on whether people find the article -- the search facility and redirects do a fine job. I know in the past the WP search was rubbish. Time to grow up and use the PROPERNAME and be proud. Colin°^Talk 12:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you define the "proper" name? (WP:PROPERNAME doesn't seem to be a shortcut to anywhere, if that's what you were assuming.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So we should have articles at Homo sapiens, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and Streptococcal pharyngitis? Does any other generalist encyclopedia have their articles at those titles? Powers ^T 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, dammit. Thwarted by WP:MEDMOS. Let's go with Samuel Langhorne Clemens as my third example then. Powers ^T 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Name for Transcendental Meditation organization article

Discussion is under way at Transcendental Meditation (technique) article talk page [1] concerning naming a new article that would potentially include all of the programs, entities of the entire TM organization. The organization officially calls itself Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (MVEDC). Suggested names for the article include: 1.) Transcendental Meditation Movement. 2.) Transcendental Meditation Organization 3.) A name that references the programs to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the organization's founder.

Sources (Google)

Programs of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: 7,390 results

Transcendental Meditation Organization: 31,400 results

Transcendental meditation Movement: 248,000

Concerns: Although MVEDC is the official name of the organization there are very few secondary sources using the name. Most commonly used name in sources is Transcendental Meditation Movement, but the term is a kind of pop term for the organization. Movement is a name that references the sociology of the organization, but perhaps not the corporate aspects. Would an umbrella name that covers all of the aspects of then organization be better. For example, something like Programs of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? If secondary sources don't use the name MVEDC much, does that mean the Wikipedia article can't be in the name the org officially calls itself?

Input would be welcome on this. Thanks.(olive (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Is MVEDC the only organization to advocate Transcendental Meditation? If not, then the name of the organization should not be equated with either the technique or the movement. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My research shows that Transcendental Meditation is a trademark and MVEDC is the sole licensee for the mark according to US Patent Office. Furthermore, according to the Wall Street Journal, Transcendental Meditation is indeed the name of a trademarked method and it is only available through MVEDC. However, it should be noted that that MVEDC is USA only (as far as I know), so there must be organizations teaching TM outside the USA. This may need to be noted in the article(s). The article on MVEDC can be seen here.[2]-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed that editors started this thread without notifying concerned editors, or placing a notice on related talk pages. Littleolive oil asserts above that "MVEDC is the official name of the organization", yet offers no proof of this assertion. The overall organization is frequently reeferred to, but MVEDC has lmost never been mentioned in print. The standard naming convnetions say to use the most common name for a topic. "Pop terms" are fine, and "TM movement" is used by scholars and TM organizations as well.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MVEDC (TM.org). Licensee information: [3] bottom of page click on: "Please refer to legal details concerning copyright and trademark protection."

That just says that the current legal entity which holds the license to the copyright is MVEDC. Even if we had a source that said explicitly something like "MVEDC, popularly know as the TM movement..." we would still tend to prefer the popular name. There are many examples of that. For one, the "American Party" (official name) is found in "Know Nothings" (popular name). A counter example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints insted of something like Mormon Church - in that case the entity in question has spent a great effort to minimize the use of "Mormon" and promote the other name, and that is reflected in popular sources. Furthermore, the MVEDC is a U.S. corporation, and by all accounts the TM movement is international and includes many entities, some of which predate the MVEDC, so the scope of the two terms is not the same. The overall organization involved with teaching and promoting Transcendental Meditation is most widely called the "Transcendental Meditation movement", and so the umbrella article should have that name.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I included information per Kbob's post. I should have explained. My own position is stated on the TM article talk page. Since this is relatively big step I felt further outside input and discussion wouldn't hurt. (olive (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

OK, after a brief search, I find that numerous groups and organizations promote TM (The David Lynch Foundation seems to be the most prominent one). These orgs may not have the legal right to call what they do TM... but they do claim to teach it. Based on this, I have to agree that the best name for the article is the broader "Transcendental Meditation movement" rather than the narrower "Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation". Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe what happens with these organizations like the David Lynch Foundation is that the organization promotes TM but the actual teaching is then done by trained TM teachers who answer to the TM organization and the founder of the organization, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi when he was alive, and now his successor. I would agree that MVEDC is not a good choice as an article name, for one very good reason and that is that it is solely American which I didn't know. Although I'm not sure using TM Movement is truly accurate, I also feel its the best choice right now, or at least the most agreed upon choice. Thanks for your input Blueboar.(olive (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Olive, you indicated that your search engine test was Google News Archives, but instead it appears to have been Google's search engine.

Blueboar, good point that there are many organizations and groups promoting TM. Also, please note that it's apparently being proposed that the article named Transcendental Meditation movement would refer to organizations related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi but not specifically related to teaching or promoting TM (since there are quite a number, for example, the various Maharishi Ayurveda organziations). "Transcendental Meditation movement" is a term that's sometimes used in passing as an umbrella term to apparently mean all organizations. But it's not consistently used as an umbrella term, so it's not a well established convention. Nor has anyone yet come up with a source that clearly defines what it means or what it comprises. One would have to look at all the usages and infer a meaning. And to make things more confusing, there's an actual corporate entity, Global Country of World Peace, that was founded in 2002 that's sort of an umbrella organization, and some sources seem to use the two terms interchangeably. Yet the Global Country organization doesn't teach TM. One point we've been discussing is whether a more descriptive article name might be better than "Transcendental Meditation movement," such as "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." Thanks for any input you might have. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see... so are you saying that the scope of this article is to discuss the organizational structure of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's corporate/educational "empire" and not the teaching of Transcendental Meditation in a larger context (I realize that "empire" is the wrong word...I just can't come up with a better term for a conglomeration of organizations that are all related to each other). If so... that is probably best placed in a section of the bio article on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, with a link to that section in the main TM article... I am not sure if having a seperate article with such a narrow scope is the right way to go here. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're right TG. I wrote in Google news archives, but it was a Google search. Sorry about that(olive (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

My concern with any of the potential titles for naming a new article is that we would have to infer meaning to create content, as TG suggests. The lede would present the first great difficulty. I would think we would have a difficult time finding sources that actually define Transcendental Meditation Movement, or Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi so potentially we would be proceeding with out being able to define as per sources what the title actually means, and would be inferring meaning. That inference would be WP: OR. As well, in checking around Wikipedia for titles that are descriptive such as Greek Islands for example, what I came up with is lists rather than a more comprehensive article. Including the suggested title or titles as sections in existing articles may be a solution.(olive (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

To Blueboar's point about a narrow article topic - I don't think the topic is narrow at all. Rather, it's an umbrella to cover the "empire", list its constituent parts, and include material on TM that isn't directly related to the meditation technique or specific entities. The background is that editors of the TM article have objected to material about the organization because they see the TM article as being just about the technique. Many writers about the TM movement don't bother to specifiy which long-named entity is actually involved in a real estate transaction or other topic. I think that "Transcendental Meditation movement" is sufficiently clear so that even a casual reader would know what is being referred to. Once we get down to writing the article the boundaries of the movement may become hard to define, but that would be a problem with any similar title, including "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", a name which no one uses.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Splitting of content related specifically to the technique was carried out with consensus of all editors several years ago, and was designed to make the boundaries of the article easier to define and so the article easier to work on. I think as Will is saying the same problem will come up with this new article, but this maybe the time to advance in this direction anyway, either adding content to the Mahrishi article, or if sources can be found (which just now seems to be the case) that define Transcendental Meditation Movement to a new article. Either may be a good solution. (olive (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

No problem... just expressing my concern. That done, the broadness or narrowness of the scope is not really an issue for this talk page... however, defining the scope does impact what the article should be named, and there does seem to be some confusion as to exactly what the scope of this potential article should be. I suggest that you all go back and discuss this at the main TM talk page (or where ever you can get the opinions of the most number of interested parties) and hammer out exactly what you want this article to be about. You may find that it names itself in the process. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One other point I think we need to consider when discussing the boundaries and what the new article (if we create one) is to be "about" is the fact that TM is taught and practiced all over the world and not to get too US centric in the topic or content. --BwB (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, we have the Maharishi Invincibility School of Management in Johannesburg, South Africa. [4] And the Maharishi Research Institute in Japan. [5] --BwB (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

precision?

We seem to be in an edit war over removing examples... see here. Please explain how the examples listed (and removed in the edit) are not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No examples were removed. It is a quite logical clarification. There was an implicit comparison between the examples of inappropriate precision with some unstated appropriate precision. The edits merely made that unstated comparison explicit. older ≠ wiser 17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

D'OH... My sincerest appologies... somehow I got turned around. I thought my reverts were adding the examples back in, when in fact I was the one removing them. I actually agree with listing these examples. Note to self... have your morning cup of coffee before you log into Wikipedia!

Sorry for the confusion folks. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bless you for that. This is easily my "best" edit war. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want, I could revert a few more times... just to make the experience more enjoyable.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

LMAO at this exchange and the edit history. An epic edit war indeed. Here: . To clarify the edit, though I think we're all on the same page now, these former examples of only the inappropriate are not very self-explanatory to the uninitiated. Providing the precise name in juxtaposition with the over-precise is a far more accessible way of teaching.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Drummers

For example, two drummers called Roger Taylor have their articles titled Roger Andrew Taylor and Roger Meddows-Taylor

Click on the first and you will find out that this is untrue. The present title now goes against much of what was said about conciseness and consistency, though it does make this particular chap easier to find. (Whose ever heard of "Roger Andrew Taylor"?) Perhaps the other one should be renamed to "Roger Taylor (Queen drummer)", since no-one calls him "Roger Meddows-Taylor"? Whatever else is true, the sentence I quoted ought really to be removed, but I'm going to leave it for its the comic value... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: The comedy gets better: this page was renamed 3 years ago here, and went through 2 or 3 more renames prior to the present name, yet the name in the lead is still "Roger Andrew Taylor"... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Honorary Titles

It is clearly Wikipedia practice not to include honorary (Dr., Rev., Venerable, Esq., Sir, etc.) or common (Mr., Ms., Mrs.) titles in the names of articles. However, this is not expressly noted on this page. I propose adding such a section. -Drdisque (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's under WP:NCNT, the appropriate guideline. It should not be policy, in part because it's one perfectly reasonable way to disambiguate people of the same name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

...okay, you lost me. When did we start treating titles like "esq." as "perfectly reasonable way to disambiguate people"? Circéus (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spaces

Helloo, is M I G Investments a right and proper title or should it be MIG Investments? The company itself seems to like its spaces and uses them liberally on its website, which must be where this came from. Which one is correct? Thanks, Miremare 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... we do not seem to discuss this anywhere. My personal preference is for MIG without the spaces, but my preference is not based on any policy or guideline statement.

I will note that the article, as it currently stands, is tagged for not passing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (otherwise known as WP:ORG). If this is not fixed, the issue may become moot (because the article may end up being deleted). Since, in order to establish notability, you will need to look for independant reliable sources that discuss the company ... I would see how they name the company and follow suit. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that a Google search for "M I G Investments" (http://www.google.com.ph/search?q="m+i+g+investments") turns up a bunch of hits referring to this company as "MIG Investments". Going by "Use names and terms most commonly used, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.", it looks like "MIG Investments" is a good choice. Also, the MIG Investments identity page, besides describing their logo, speaks of the company as either "MIG Investments" or, occasionally, as "M I G". I'd name it "MIG Investments", perhaps with a redirect from "M I G". (but then, I'm no authority on article naming) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I have no idea whether the company is notable or not, though judging by their Google hits I'd say probably not, but I agree that MIG seems the better title to use. Cheers, Miremare 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions (architecture)

I am creating comprehensive naming convention about architecture.

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture)

And i am asking all of you to join, edit, talk about it here, and make some new good guide for the architecture articles. wiki must have one!

Tadija (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh great... just what we need... yet another subject specific namiming convention.

What's next: WP:Naming conventions (Belgian ex-patriot poets of the sixteenth century) ? Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at it... there really isn't anything said there that is not said here... so it is really needed? Also, it seems overly dominated by the "Places of worship" section. As it stands, it really isn't a naming convention for architecture articles in general. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar - we should be eliminating topic-specific naming conventions - not adding more needless ones. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Initials in names

Is there a policy regarding whether initials should be included in the names of articles? I've always removed them and moved pages to not have them when I've found them but someone has queried whether this should be done and pointed out that there doesn't seem to be anything about it on this page. I personally see no reason for them to be in the title but would like to see what others think. Smartse (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's primarily a matter of using common names. For example, J. D. Salinger is far more recognizable than "Jerome David Salinger", or W. E. B. Du Bois over "William Edward Burghardt Du Bois". older ≠ wiser 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the speedy response! Could this be added to the policy page then? It is kind of obvious but I can't see the harm in explicitly stating it. Smartse (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly something that relates closely to each individual page, and therefore I feel that such pages should not be moved without ample time for discussion on the article's talk page, and also should only be done after carefully checking possible ambiguities. The fact is, for example, that fewer people would recognize "John Kennedy" more readily than "John F. Kennedy" or "John Calhoun" than "John C. Calhoun". It's fine point whether more people would recognize "Franklin Roosevelt" quite as easily as "Franklin D. Roosevelt" or "Franklin Delano Roosevelt". But the only way to ascertain this is to ask and listen, and moving pages is far too clumsy and error-prone in the wrong hands (e.g. mine) to rely on Bold, Revert, Discuss. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, Presidential Middle Names —— Shakescene (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Competing Common Names

I'm sorry if I've put this in the wrong spot, but I think we need another guideline viz. common names vs. official names. My suggestion is that we have a rule that states something like: Where two or more common names seem equally justified for the article title, the common name that is closet to the official name ought to be the actual article name. For example, imagine a country that is known, for whatever reason, as both "Majugdo" and "Bajando". Reference, in the English-speaking world, to either name will make almost all listeners think of the same country. However, if the official name of the country is "The Illustrious Democratic Republic of Bajando" then the Wikipedia article should be found under Bajando, NOT Majugdo. Pariah23 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You got any actual examples? I can't think this is something that would come up all that often. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have something in mind, but that's not the point. I just want to know if the Wikipedia community thinks the principle is sound. It seems common sense to me, but apparently it is not to others. Pariah23 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable in theory... but I am warry of creating firm naming conventions based on theoretical, made up examples. Conventions that seem reasonable in theory do not always work when applied to real world situations. Rather than apply a "blanket rule" we need to examine each specific situation... we need to know why the subject has two commonly used names, and then reach a consensus as to which should be used in Wikipedia. There may be very good reasons to name the article "Majugdo", even though "Bajando" is closer to the "official" name.

As an unrelated aside... I am reminded of a story told by Margaret Thatcher... apparently, she realized that the seating at international summits of world leaders was usually arranged alphabetically by name of country. So, she would figure out who she needed to talk to at the summit, and choose who she represented accordingly. If she needed to talk to the President of the United States, she would represent the "United Kingdom". If she needed to talk to the President of Egypt, she would represent "England". If she needed to talk to the Prime Minister of Greece, she would represent "Great Britain". Etc. (once, she needed to talk to the President of Angola, so she asked that the seating be done in French... so she represented "Angleterre".) This story has littel to do with how we name our articles... but it does show how names can be somewhat fungable depending on the context. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been a BIG discussion about this. As one consequence, at the end of the Common Names section of the policy, it does actually state. When there is no common English name, use the official name (as defined in a legal context, for example, such as a national constitution), or the name that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. Xandar 23:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this proposal is unsound. Just use whatever reliable sources prefer. If "use the common name that is closest to the official name" is auch a great idea, then that will be reflected in the usage of reliable sources. Hesperian 23:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Xandar and Hesperian... You are both missing Melodia's point... he or she is talking about a situation where there is a common name used in sources... in fact there are two equally common names. Neither is the actual legal "offical name" but one is closer to the legal "offical name" than the other. I think this is such a rare situation that it is best handled through discussion and consensus at the talk page of the article itself. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian 01:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not so rare as you may think - Taiwan, China, North Korea, South Korea, Macedonia, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Myanmar/Burma all immediately spring to mind, each of which has produced enough heat it is a wonder the whole of Wikipedia hasn't burst into flames! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of these examples really reflects the situation that Melodia was raising... but, they do back up my point... each of these debates involve different issues that have to be considered, to the point where different debates have resulted conflicting outcomes. In some of these articles the consensus has been to use the "official name"; In others the concensus has been to go with "common name"; and in yet others we base our name on other criteria all together. I don't think we can or should create a firm rule on this. It has to be determined on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, it wasn't me who started this thread, it was Pariah23. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction... My mistake... sorry. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I'm talking about a situation (and these do exist) where there IS a common English name -- in fact, two of them! It just seems odd to me that such a dispute would essentially be settled by "which was used first on Wikipedia?" when "which is closest to the real/official name?" seems a much better question. Blueboar, I understand your pragmatic approach, but it seems to conflict with the entire point of these naming guidelines. For example, instead of going case-by-case we just state up front, "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks" or "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English usage" so that we don't have to have a debate over every single article title. It's a way of mediating debates where there are good arguments on both sides: a way of asking, "Ok, is there a higher convention that we can appeal to to settle this?" And I'm suggesting that this is one such logical convention that ought to be in place that helps avoid politics (both in terms of real-world politics & Wikipedia politics). To me this suggested guideline really helps balance between formality & informality -- we'll go by the common name unless that common name coincides with the official name. If 50% of the English-speaking world knows those cuddly dudes as a "koala" and the other 50% knows 'em as "cinereus," it really baffles me why we'd opt for "koala". In my personal life I may stick with "koala," but for the world's most popular encyclopedia it seems really peculiar.Pariah23 (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here remember the recent Irish Naming Debate, with a dauntingly-complicated voting system? Most of the issues raised here were probably discussed in some form there, and rather exhaustively. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really because at least some of those who supported Ireland (state) over the Republic of Ireland did not seem to realise that as the Irish constitution when initially drafted claimed sovereignty over the whole of the island of Ireland, that "Ireland" was the logical choice given the point of view of those who drafted and accepted the constitution. So naming the article Ireland (state) pushes a specific POV just as much or more than the name Republic of Ireland does. In the same way the name Catholic Church (instead of Roman Catholic Church) pushes a specific POV. So arguing that we should use official names can easily lead to bias when the name itself is presenting a POV (something that many organisations push for). Because a name is bias is no reason not to use it if that name is the name commonly used in reliable sources, but when there are a number of competing names one of the things that needs to be thrown into the mix is consideration of POV issues, for example see Liancourt Rocks which is not the most common name but is the one that carries the least NPOV out of the three most common names, and which probably stirred up more outside national interest than any other naming issue on Wkipedia. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And just to make my position clear... I agree that "the official name" is an important factor that needs to be tossed into the mix when determining how to name an article. I simply disagree with saying that it must be the over-riding determining factor. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between advocating the official name as the determining factor versus advocating it as the deciding factor during conflicts. In the former, it's the #1 criterion. In the latter, which I'm suggesting here, it's the deciding criterion when other guidelines have failed to mediate disputes. It is IMHO a better deciding factor than "What was the article's first name?" which often essentially boils down to "Whose POV was first represented?" Pariah23 (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "official name" is the #1 criterion in any situation... it is simply one of many criterion (others include, but are not limited to, common names, neutral names, and "name that conform to others in a topic area")... all of which have to be considered and weighed within the context of each individual article. I would, however, agree that "what name was first applied to the article?" should not carry as much weight as these others. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I said that "official name as the #1 criterion" was NOT my position? At some point a dispute reaches an impasse: say there are 20 good reasons pro, 20 good reasons con. How do we resolve this? Currently the dispute is settled by "Who was here first? OK, you get to name the article!" This is silly. All I'm saying is that appeals to the official name are less silly. So if you "agree that 'what name was first applied to the article?' should not carry as much weight as these others," then how exactly are you disagreeing with my proposal? Pariah23 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure, though, that the official name argument would already be in there among those 20 v. 20 arguments, so it can hardly serve as a fair tiebreaker in that situation.--Kotniski (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The "tie breaker" is determined by consensus. This might be the official name... or it might be one of the other criterion (NPOV name, most commonly usedname , consistency with other articles, etc.). Indeed, it could even be "Who was here first", if that is what the consensus is (although I suspect that most editors would give more weight to other arguments in most situations). All of the arguments have to be considered and weighed. And (as we have seen in practice) the result will be slightly different at different articles. The simple fact is... What resolves the conflict at one article will not work to resolve the conflict at another. This isn't something that can or should be mandated by policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So why even have policy? Why did we even ever state "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English usage"? At some point, whether you & I like it or not, this encyclopedia decided to lay down guidelines & codes -- policy. It is a little late in the game (just look at how detailed the guidelines get!) to suddenly revert to "We operate on a case-by-case scenario." That opens us up to all sorts of politicking & POV problems, the kind of things these policies held us avoid. We needn't sit around going "Is it Soren or Søren Kierkegaard?" or "Is it Majugdo or Bajando?" when two simple, commonsensical policies avoid the dispute altogether. Pariah23 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a good question. Personally, I don't think this should be "Policy"... it should be a general guideline (similar in stature to the General Notability Guideline). But that is a different issue. Actually, what I am saying is in perfect sync with the policy... in the lede it says: "When no consensus exists, it is established through discussion...". To put this another way... if no consensus exists, keep discussing until you get a consensus (note: consensus does not mean "everyone agrees", but nor does it mean a simple majority)

Yes, we lay out certain broad principles to guide us... choose names that are Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, and Consistent (etc.) ... however, these principles are not hierarchichal... they all need to be considered and weighed on a case by case basis.

As for the "Who was here first" rule... I see this as mearly a temporary default mode to limit edit warring... It simply tells editors who are in a naming debate to leave the name "as is" while further discussions take place on whether to change the name or not. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder: voting closes 14 December

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Readers over editors

About this reversion by Born2cycle: I have asked on the talk page for an example of a name that favors editors over readers, e.g., [6] and I certainly wasn't the only person, e.g., [7].

The response was that maybe such an issue existed in an ancient version of the software that couldn't handle redirects or the pipe trick, or perhaps it was meant to discourage unintelligible abbreviations, but that nobody could think of a single example in which a vague injunction to optimize names for "readers over editors" would make the slightest difference. I believe one editor referred to the phrase as "mysterious".

Other than (apparently) Born2cycle, I don't believe that anyone actually favors including this meaningless verbiage. Of course, if someone could provide even one example of a name that favors a (non-specialist) editor over a (non-specialist) reader, then I'd be perfectly willing to reëxamine my own position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind much, but I think this is an important principle that ought to be advertised somewhere more general than this page - perhaps at WP:5P level. It's amazing how often arguments of editor convenience are put forward against arguments of product quality as if the two are more or less equal importance. I don't recall any in specific connection with naming, though (except perhaps people who object to non-ASCII characters in titles because they're too difficult to type).--Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All I need to be capable of supporting this is a single concrete example that shows me what it means. So far, nobody has ever provided one. I know what "don't use willfully obscure technical jargon" ("non-specialists over specialists") means. I don't know what "readers over editors" means. As far as I can tell, there simply are no names that favor (non-specialist) readers over (non-specialist) editors, or the other way around.

I oppose the inclusion of meaningless verbiage in any policy. It's always sloppy and it frequently results in pointless disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's from before my time; but one of the things it addresses is the hardy perennial that we throw up our hands and agree to use arbitrary strings as article names, making all possible names into redirects. That would certainly make editors' lives easier, but it would not serve readers well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have many specific examples but I do know that it is a regular issue that arises with all content on particularly debated issues. Editors spend weeks/months arguing over an POV issue and conclude with a "deal" or a "package" that satisfies their POVs in some way, the net effect of which is to satisfy editors needs but is often not in the best interest of readers. Naming issues relating to the Irish Famine pops to mind but I cannot remember the specifics.

As a general principle it should be repeated as often and on as many pages as possible. It is certainly not meaningless verbiage. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

PMA, I don't understand how anyone could pretend that a random name like [[agil aoihalkvh]] would favor editors. You'd have to go look up the name of the article if you didn't want to run through the redirect, and pipe every link. Where's the advantage to people editing articles? (Not: "to people arguing about which name to choose".)

Rannpháirtí, can you tell me how Great Famine (Ireland) favors editors over readers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Great Famine (Ireland)" is the good choice. Before then I recall it was moved to The Great Hunger as part of a "package deals" that traded changes to content against the title of the page. The result suited editors but, and The Great Hunger is a legitimate title for the topic, but how many readers are going to recognise it or search for it by that name? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Did this "suit editors" because of something related to editing, or because the editors decided that "The Great Hunger" was a name used in high-quality reliable sources? I don't think that using whatever name is most prominent in the best sources really "favors editors over readers". (I've certainly heard of both of these names before, along with several others.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. It was because it suited editors - it was part of an ill-advised "package deal" (that I was involved in creating) over wording to be used in the intro being balanced by the title. "Great Hunger" is not an uncommon name, but more figurative one and would not ordinarily have been a choice. It's choice on that occasion was to resolve content dispute problems, not on merit of "what will we call this article".

There are other such examples but that is one that springs to mind. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It "suited editors" because it made editing easier (=something about editing), or it "suited editors", meaning that it suited the individual humans that cared to express an opinion (=something not about editing)? On the basis of your comments above, it sounds like the choice was not to make editing easier, but as an NPOV-related compromise (i.e., something that serves everyone, not solely the people that are typing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One example is internal consistency over the name in reliable sources. If one is familiar with an area in Wikipedia there will be a tendency to look for (or create) an article with a similar name to other articles, because to the editor it is the obvious choice. But for a general reader they will tend to search on the name that is most familiar to them, which we take to be the name usually used in other sources.

An example that often crops up is that thanks to the prominence of English, we have many articles about Eastern and Central Europe provided by editors who's mother tongue is from that country in Eastern or Central Europe. some/many editors who's mother tongue is not English, have a tendency to want to use letter for name which look correct to them, but just look odd to monoglot English readers. While many English readers are familiar with French and Spanish and probably ignore accent marks on names in those languages, their eyes will note and be distracted by words such as Lech Wałęsa, just as the lack of such marks are distracting to editors who bother to alter names such as Djuradj Kusljic to Đurađ Kušljić. When requested moves are made for names such as Lech Wałęsa -- where it is clear that the majority of English language sources Lech Walesa -- editors argue that the former is "correct" and if they are used to writing Đurađ Kušljić they are far more likely to create an article under Đurađ Kušljić than Djuradj Kusljic even if the name is spelt in a way that most English speakers would find distracting and even if thanks to the lack of a "j" on the end of the first name a search of the word in articles would not find it. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round if anything - people use spellings like Lech Wałęsa because it helps readers (giving them more information about the pronunciation and original form of the name, if they happen to be able to use that information, and providing only minor distraction if not). Editors would surely find it easier not to type the diacritics. (With the Serbian/Croatian ones it's not so clear it's a good idea, but still I don't see that it's a reader v. editor matter.) Anyway, we do tend to use the diacritics, so only my interpretation makes this an argument for (rather than against) including the phrase in question in the policy.--Kotniski (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, insofar as no modern browser's find-in-page functionality is capable of normalising these characters to US-ASCII at this time it's still a problem for readers. I wouldn't say that this is settled so much as generally ignored right now with the exception of a few flash points. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski How does "Đurađ Kušljić" help the average monoglot English reader? Much better to use the spelling used in reliable English language sources. Usually English people do not pronounce names as their funny foreign squiggles would suggest eg Zurich is not pronounced as the spelling Zürich would suggest. If we followed the logic of what you said "it helps readers (giving them more information about the pronunciation and original form of the name, if they happen to be able to use that information, and providing only minor distraction if not)" then all names would be in IPA!

The point is we should not be putting in spellings like "Đurađ Kušljić" because it is more familiar to editors from his country or the state he would rather not live in. This argument has been played out many times on talk pages and it tends to be editors who are native English speakers who say use the name as in English language sources, and it tends to be editors who native language includes funny foreign squiggles who want to keep them. As this is a Wikipedia for readers of English this would suggest that including them in cases like "Lech Wałęsa" is clearly something being done by many because it looks right to them, rather than what looks right to the majority of our readers. --PBS (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it was up to me, then we would use what you term "funny foreign squiggles" in cases like Wałęsa, where they provide extra information without doing any more harm than slight distraction, but not in cases like Đurađ where you have letters that don't look at all like their normal English representations. I tried proposing this once as a general rule, but people didn't buy it, so we're left with the situation we're in, where all squiggles are normally used. Anyway, we're going off topic a bit - this isn't really a reader v. editor situation in the way we describe (I mean obviously it's the editors rather than the readers who make the decisions, but they're making them for what they believe to be the good of the reader - just because you think readers would be best served by a certain decision doesn't mean that others don't sincerely believe that they would be best served by the opposing decision).--Kotniski (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the "funny squiggles" name benefits (some) readers (those that can use the information), and does not benefit any editors (because figuring out how to get the "funny squiggles" to display correctly, and which redirects they need to place, is extra work).

I'm not convinced that PBS's example of predictable naming strategies benefits editors and/or harms readers. I should think that it has no effect at all on editors, and that it would help readers (who might reasonably conclude "If ____ is the name of this article, then I'll bet the related subject can be found by searching for ______.")

Note, please, that I think everything at Wikipedia should be done with the maximum benefit to readers held in mind. I'm simply not convinced that there exists any article name that actually benefits an editor at the expense of a reader. Certainly no one has proposed a single example that we have been able to agree benefits non-specialist editors over readers: the examples have all been about favoring specialists over non-specialists, or have advantages that could be assigned to either editors or readers with at least equal validity. If it is not possible to identify a single example of a "bad" name that favors editors and the "good" name that favors readers, then we shouldn't even mention the possiblity here (per WP:BEANS). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As a reader (I don't edit Eastern European articles), I prefer "Wałęsa". When he first became famous, all the newspapers wrote "Walesa" (still do, afaict), but I read that it was pronounced vah-WEN-sah, which made no sense until I saw it properly spelled—and which began my interest in Polish phonology. A good encyclopedia, IMO, tells you more than you were looking for.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That can be done in the first line of the article, (or as a footnote). But we do no reader a favour by using funny foreign squiggles as the name of the article if reliable English language sources do not. Better to reserve them for when they do, or when there are no English language sources on the subject. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PBS, the issue you need to address is "How does using "Wałęsa", rather than "Walesa", actually favor editors?" Everything you've said so far about how "funny squiggles" might not be appreciated by readers applies even more forcefully to editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if Born2cycle was here he would be first and foremost talking about obligative predisambiguation; e.g. Meekatharra, Western Australia rather than Meekatharra. Whenever it is proposed to dump these redundant disambiguation terms, the primary argument for keeping is that it makes linking really simple, because you know exactly where the title belongs and you don't have to worry about accidentally linking to a disambiguation page, or creating redlinks to a title that will eventually be taken by some other topic. Clearly, this is a case where editorial considerations have held sway. Whether it is the case that the name "favors editors over readers" is debatable. Nonetheless this is, I believe, the kind of thing B2c had in mind.

No doubt he also had in mind those pesky flora editors who stubbornly insist on applying botanical nomenclature to plant article titles, without a thought for their gormless readers who prefer vague but familiar vernacular names.

Hesperian 05:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A follow up to the same point was posted in Archive 16:

Undone. The example provided by Hesperian is a good one. The article should have the title Meekatharra because that is the common name of the place and there is no need for disambiguation. If, for some technical editing reason, we need the link Meekatharra, Western Australia too, this may be provided as a redirect. For another example, consider the common usage Xxxxxx (disambiguation). This is written in full, rather than being abbreviated as Xxxxxx (dab) per our common internal usage. This may be less convenient for editors who have to type this long form, but it is clearer for readers and so we prefer it. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

when one is creating a 1,000 article all the same style and most require a disambiguation then common sense says that all should be for consistancy across the entire subject group, we then use those mystical redirects along with disambiguation pages and hat notes. When it comes to article titles we should be considering what is the standard keyboard character set for the majority of english speaking people article titles should be in that format with redirects from alternative character sets along with alternative spellings, this about accessability via the lowest common denominator. Gnangarra 14:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that one of the remarkable strengths of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, the redirect, is so commonly disrespected. I have no trouble typing Lech Walesa, and it takes me right to the article. Likewise with Skwxwu7mesh and !Kung. There are arguments to be made, but any of them that involve the inadequacies of the en-us keyboard are, IMO, specious.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with redirects is that there are editors who come along and remove the redirect and change the name in the text of an article for the name of the target article. They do this either because a redirect involves slightly more processing power, or because they think that the name of an article must have been considered carefully and is therefore "better" than the name used in a redirect, or they do it for both those reasons. Here is an example, which involved changing a name for the "better" although the footnotes make it clear that the names in the column is spelt the way they are, (dot and all,) because that is how it is in the source. -- PBS (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying we should favor clueless editors over readers? (What I see much more often is the use of popups to substitute the article name before a pipe, even in the case of plurals.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Avoid abbreviations" covers the "(dab)" issue rather thoroughly, IMO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will be clearer: The "funny foreign squiggles" issue is just another manifestation of the "specialist" issue. "Wałęsa" favors the specialist (the person that can read Polish) over the non-specialist (the person who cannot read Polish). Using a "specialist alphabet" clearly does not favor non-specialists, whether they are editors or readers. IMO it disfavors non-specialist editors more than it disfavors non-specialist readers, but it's really an issue of "specialists", not the reader/editor dichotomy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that this phrase adds anything actionable or useful to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think it serves as a refutation of what Gnangarra wrote above. Whether Gnangarra's comment ought to be refuted by this convention is another matter.... Hesperian 23:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Gnangarra seems to argue against "funny foreign squiggles" and in favor of reasonable consistency in article titles. How do these positions favor or disfavor (non-specialist) readers instead of (equally non-specialist) editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, to revive a perennial dispute elsewhere that's a pertinent example here, how about using ß or Es-zett, in articles about people like Franz Josef Strauß ? (I ran across this while trying to disambiguate several Weisses and Weißes.) The Swiss (whose keyboard also has to accommodate French and Italian) got rid of ß sixty or seventy years ago, with no apparent ill-effects, and the German spelling reform of 1996 radically reduced its use. I certainly don't want to tell the Germans, the Austrians or German-language Wikipedia how to handle this issue, and there are reasons that some would like to retain the es-zett, but using it for article titles in English Wikipedia doesn't tell the reader anything useful about pronunciation, while its unfamiliarity could easily lead him or her astray (it looks like the letter "b"). Redirects can help and should of course be compulsory, but this doesn't help with section headings and subheadings. There's not one reader in a thousand that knows the ASCII-based Windows keyboard combination Alt+223, so searching becomes frustrated. (On the other hand, I want to leave editors complete discretion in whether to use it in the body of an article's text as they best see fit.)—— Shakescene (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this, in your opinion, represent a decision that somehow favors non-specialist editors over readers? Because I doubt that our typical editor is likely to know what Windoze key combination produces ß. (I certainly don't know any Alt+### codes.)

I agree that Wikipedia should serve its readers; I'm trying to find an example of a name that BOTH benefits readers AND harms non-specialist editors. So far, we've come up with several examples of choices that would benefit or harm both groups equally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Avoid accent-/quote-like characters

Why?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons I can think of off hand... 1) English does not use them (and this is the English version of wikipedia)... 2) So that everyone can search for and find the article (our readers may be using keypads that do not have accent keys available, and if the name of the article includes them it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to find the article). Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

. . . but it is important to point out that there is no reason not to create a redirect page, the title of which contains accent- and quote-like characters, and which redirects to the "main" article, the title of which does not have them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are two good reasons, but they don't apply to ' and ".--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking about "&"? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The two characters that those reasons don't apply to are:

'

"

They are standard English-language keyboard characters. Are there any reasons to prohibit or discourage their use in article names?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of an article title where these quote symbols might be used? I am having difficulty seeing a situation where we would we ever want to have a tible with a guote in it? Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are sometimes quotes within proverbs; if You say tomato I say tomato were a proverb (instead of a song quote, which redirects to the song from which it comes), it might be customary to phrase it as You say "tomaeto" I say "tomahto" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

' is used in Qur'an--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also a host of articles which use apostrophes e.g. Occam's razor, Boyle's law. Part of the question is whether to use "straight" quotation marks, as found on most keyboards, or the "curly" quotation marks, ‘ ’ “ and ” . I understand that for technical (e.g. searching) and practical reasons, Wikipedia style is to use the former. At my screen size and resolution, I can barely distinguish them, although I prefer curly ones because you can see where quotes begin and end. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The other intended "accent like" characters are the actual separate accent characters `´ which you'll often see used instead of quotes to emulate curlies. Circéus (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Those should be eliminated on sight. They're the worst of both worlds: crude ASCII mimicry which offends the curly quotes crowd, and unsearchable and nonstandard aesthetic cruft which offends everyone else. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Explicit conventions

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 17#RfC: In WP:Naming Conventions, should the specific exceptions to "Use Common Name" be removed? and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 18#Revision as of 11:59, 27 September 2009

this edit (19 Oct) introduced "explicit conventions". This is not acceptable.

First they are guidelines to the conventions not conventions. But that is a minor syntactic issue which cold be easily solved.

The second is that is no consensus that the flora guideline, or any other guideline should be an exception to this policy, the long argument over Naming conflict a guideline which was used for the move from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, should indicate why this is a very problematic section. The danger is that a small group (such as those at flora) will write a guideline, and claim that it has precedence over the general policy, even when it is contrary to policy. This is a concept that this policy should not endorse. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean (as usual when you get going on this topic). The "explicit conventions" are the pages like "Naming conventions (ships)", "Naming conventions (flora)" and so on. They are obviously guidelines, but they are equally obviously conventions, so I don't really get your first point (I know it's not the first time you've made it, but no-one seemed to understand you the other times either).

About the second point, it always said in this policy something like "use common names except where explicit naming conventions provide otherwise", so I don't think it can be claimed that anything was changed on that score in the edit you cite (if anything, the new language is now less sympathetic to other conventions' taking precedence over the policy).--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is the naming conventions page the others are guidelines. Also see your comment in the RFC "Leave out the disputed sentence. As pointed out, the new structure of the page means it is no longer needed, since it is now perfectly clear that the common name principle is one of several. There is no more need for an "except where..." clause in that place than there is in any other section of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)" -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This page and the others are naming conventions pages - this naming conventions page is a policy, the other naming conventions pages are guidelines. I don't know why you keep saying the others ones aren't naming conventions pages - their titles and their content show quite clearly that they are. Nor do I know why you're quoting that comment of mine - I still stand by it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the naming convention policy the others are guidelines, I do not think calling them conventions helps to bring clarity however that is not really pertinent to this conversation. You wrote before that "There is no more need for an 'except where...' clause in that place than there is in any other section of this page", where we differed was that I did not agree that the old wording of the except cause excepted anything but other parts of the policy page (because only the policy page contains the conventions (do you see the logic now)). So I did not object to whether the wording except was or was not part of the page -- other than it was not clear and so I was happy to see it go. But with the edit you made on 13 Oct you expanded the except clause when previously you and many of the other editors who took part in the RFC agreed to remove it. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, the reason they wanted it removed was because it wasn't necessary any more, since the page now makes clear that there are other factors to be considered. And it certainly isn't true to say that it's only other parts of the policy page that can take precedence over the other guidelines - we know from multiple discussions that people often want kings and queens and peers and ships and so on to be named in accordance with the specialized guidelines rather than the general rules set out on the policy page. --Kotniski (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But this is no reason to give the editors of guidelines a carte blanche to ignore the wording of this policy which is what this section does -- if it did not then what is the reason for this "and otherwise adhere to the general principles for naming articles on Wikipedia."? -- PBS (talk)

The way I read the Explicit conventions section, it's worded very much in such a way as not to give a carte blanche, and the phrase you quote contributes to that impression. I don't suppose many people will take much notice of that section anyway, but for what it's worth, it's saying that specific guidelines shouldn't deviate from the general policy except where there's a very good reason, which I think is basically what you want to say.--Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to the GNG / SNG debates

This reminds me of the arguments over netweem the general notability guideline (GNG) or the many topic area special notability guidelines (SNG). The problem that I see with the current language is this: We have a Policy that actually encourages policy creep and confusion. If a group of editors don't like what this policy says, all they have to do is write WP:Naming convention (topic area) and, Bingo, they have carved out an "exception".

So, let me ask the question that everyone is avoiding: Is there a clear Wikipedia wide consensus on how to name articles? Or do we simply have a multitude of topic area conventions, each of which reflects a local consensus, and each of which says something slightly different? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the answer is Yes, and that the clear, Wikipedia-wide consensus is "It depends".
  We all want articles to have names that are accessible (=common), accurate, sufficiently precise (but not pre-disambiguated), and predictable (=consistent and reasonable for searching). Disputes arise only when it is not obvious which name best meets all of the above criteria (e.g., do you choose the Australian, Canadian, UK or US name for a product that is equally available in dozens of countries?) and when it is impossible to identify any name that meets all of the above (Do you choose precision over accessibility, or the other way around?).
  Subject-specific guidelines do the most good when they are clear about the principles they value. Flora, for example, could be largely summarized as "We know that common names are more accessible than scientific names, but they are so hopelessly confusing due to the multiplicity of common names per plant, as well as the number of plants per common name, that a common name will almost never manage to be accurate, precise, and predictable, so please use the scientific name." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And what about the cases where, exceptionally, there is a common name that is accurate precise and predictable? Do we use it in that case, in order to be consistent with overall WP naming policy, or do we reject it in order to be consistent with the flora naming standards?--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the Wikipedia-wide consensus in the situation you describe is for the editors involved in the individual article to make a decision that seems best to them, rather than expecting the full community to tell them the Right Answer™. Ideally, they'll do this civilly and while asserting a rational argument in favor of their decision, but if they have to resort to a war of attrition or invoke dispute resolution, then that's apparently okay, too.

I'm not saying that the community consensus is ideal: I'm just telling you that the community consensus is that when it's not easy, the community wants you to have a dispute about the specific article's name, rather than writing rigidly enforced rules that can be implemented mindlessly and automatically (the only kind of rules that don't produce occasional disputes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The flora people consistently reject such names; it would be uncivil to describe why, but Wikipedia would not be harmed if about 70% took up a different hobby. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Hesperian 06:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you consistently reject such names yourself, PMA, when the issue is queens rather than plants? Is there a difference between the two situations?--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No. See Talk:Boris Godunov for a move to a recognizable name over a merely formulaic one - although the fact I've just misspelled it suggests I may have been hasty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a similar perennial debate over Victoria of the United Kingdom (who?), a name that's unrecognizable to the vast majority of those who want to learn something about Queen Victoria, but used as part of the general naming scheme adopted for royalty to avoid ambiguities. Victoria's mother was Victoria, as were her daughter who became Empress of Germany and a granddaughter, Victoria Eugenie, who became Queen of Spain, in addition to a queen of Sweden, Victoria of Baden. See Queen Victoria (disambiguation). But see also the tortured debates at Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom#Requested move and Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I doubt there is a debate -- the WP:NCROY folks are particularly vehement about hewing to that standard in every case -- but Queen Victoria redirects to Victoria of the United Kingdom, and has for two-and-a-half years now. So there's obvious agreement about who most people mean when they search for "Queen Victoria", which makes opposition to moving the article to that title baffling. Powers ^T 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2 names

How should the article Palena/General Vintter Lake be named? Using a combined name to settle a POV issue not advised, but the lake is shared by Argentina and Chile, and each one name it a different way. There isn't an official name and an alternative one, nor a local use against a foreign one. MBelgrano (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey some reliable sources not from Argentina or Chile. How do international mapmakers label it? How do travel guides handle it? Gazetteers? Powers ^T 13:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Accounts of travel in South America are likely to be more decisive than any of those, which will all attempt to reflect the local signage, which in turn presumably differs on the two sides of the lake. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia suggests that there is another Argentine name: Lago General Paz. While this is a problem, it's not an urgent one as long as nobody starts move requests to change the order of the names.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009

See Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions/Archive 17#Consistent Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 18#What is "consistency"?, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 19#Consistency_wording

the line "Consistent – Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." was added to this policy with no consensus to do so. I still think it needs qualifying to place it in the context of the other bullet points. -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it already in the context of the other bullet points by the fact that it appears just below them and as one of them? We've had this argument several times before - can you suggest some better wording?--Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem it appears in parity with the other bullet points when it is subservient to the others. Kotniski did you not understand my position on this from my input on this issue in previous sections? -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I never know what your position is - last time we met you were arguing against moving an article (Tennyson's, I think) from a consistent name to a common name. But anyway, the result of the RfC some time ago was that consistency is not subservient to other principles, so we can hardly make out that it is, unless we're going to start another RfC on the matter.--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I said if it were to be moved Alfred Tennyson would be a better name, if that is what the sources used. The name suggested seemed to be done on counting ghits not on an analysis of reliable source naming patterns. I gave the example of EB 1911 calling Barons "Lord" in most texts (because that is usual way) but placing the articles under "name, Baron". There was no evidence presented that Alfred, Lord Tennyson was used as the name for articles in reliable sources. My position on this issue is clear, consistency should not be placed on an equal footing with the other bullet points and I have given examples of British Armed Forces and not the consistent pattern of Military of the United Kingdom (consistency over reliable sources); and Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany over Occupation of Norway by Germany, when there have been no other occupations of Norway by Germany (consistency over precision -- there were a whole list in this format eg occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany). -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand and might agree, but it's only our personal opinion, not that of the community. The fact that Occupation of Norway by Germany is not the name of the article tells us that people think differently than you. Similarly all these monarch and peer titles, which have nothing in their favour except consistency with each other, yet are still used in preference to common names.--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This debate is rediculous, because we are going to find examples to support both view points... The simple fact is... Consistency is a legitimate principle to be considered when nameing an article, and should be listed ... but it is not the over-riding one. It is simply one of several principles that guide us in creating article names.

Obviously we hope for names that fit all of our principles at the same time... but sometimes we can not achieve that hope. Sometimes the principles conflict... for example: one name will be the most "Recognizable" while another will be the most "Consistent". When that happens, we have to weigh the various names and the various principles and choose between them. Which principle will end up carrying more weight depends on the individual article. It all comes down to consensus at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You may think it ridiculous, but I do not. Consistency is a legitimate principle to be considered, but only after the points in the preceding bullet points have been met. -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with PBS. But I wouldn't say that consistency is less important than the others. Rather, I would say that consistency is often valued more highly than it ought to be. Therefore I oppose demoting the principle, but I sure wish there were some way to convince people to give the other principles a bit more of a look-in. Hesperian 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we replace the current wording in this policy in on "Consistent – Usually only when the other principles don't indicate an obvious choice, similar articles are given similar titles." (as was done 9 Oct) -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out once before, if we're going to have wording like that, it needs to be rephrased to make it logically correct (it isn't true to say "usually only...", since similar articles usually get given similar titles even when the other principles do indicate an obvious choice, because the obvious choices for similar articles are usually similar). What you're trying to say (and I would agree with, but I don't know if others will - they didn't before) is something like: "similar articles are usually given similar titles, but this is usually used as a criterion for choice of title only when the other principles don't indicate an obvious choice."--Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That can be shorted to "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles." --PBS (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI... I already changed the objectionable language (about a week ago). Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your change did not address this specific issue. -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is just silly, PBS. Evidence suggests that people are putting way too much emphasis on consistency when it comes to naming. I think we agree on that? It follows that editing this policy to put even less emphasis on consistency will make this policy a less accurate description of how this community goes about naming articles. The only justification for making this policy less accurate is the belief that doing so will drag community practises along with it. Do you really think your proposed change will galvanise the flora/royalty/ships/geography/etc people into abandoning their consistency-based guidelines en masse? It ain't gonna happen. Hesperian 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you objection is. This has nothing to do with well written guidelines, as presumably they follow the other points (like "Recognizable", "Easy to find", "Precise", and "Concise". Or are you suggesting that they do not? -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your stated objection was not that it is poorly written but "That is the problem it appears in parity with the other bullet points when it is subservient to the others." I dispute that consistency is subservient to the others; rather, all are subservient to "do what reliable sources do". Some editors are putting way too much emphasis on consistency—that is a problem—but your response is to demote consistency to be subservient to the other principles, thus making the disparity between policy and practice even greater than it currently is. That doesn't make sense. Hesperian 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Take precision as an example. It is not subservient to reliable sources, instead what it does, is complement reliable sources. In what what is there a disparity between policy and practice if "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles." is adopted? I think that is far closer to what is done in practice than "Use names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." as time and again inexperienced editors are told in requested moves that other article names do not set a precedent for the article under discussion. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To me this is much ado about nothing... since immediately following the bullet point list we state:

• Most articles will have a simple and obvious name that satisfies most or all of these criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article names are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. (italics mine... but I could agree to italicize in the policy if needed)

I read this to mean that it is up to local consesnus as to which of the various naming criteria is the most important to follow... This matches how I see them being applied in practice. In some topic areas (flora is a good example) there is a strong consensus in favor of using a consistent naming format... and since consensus is the real key to naming, in these areas "consistency" should be followed... in other topic areas, however, the consensus seems to be that other criteria such as "Recognizability" are favored. That is fine too. Again, the key is consensus at the article and project level.

In other words... we already say that it is up to local consensus to determine when and if any of these criteria should be considered more important or less important than the others. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words...

My position on the flora guideline is well known and the consensus at project level should not override the broader consensus on naming articles. But in this specific case I am not sure how my suggested change of wording to this point is seen as affecting the flora guideline. So please explain it to me. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar as you have not addressed my point, I don't see why you should revert my change. -- PBS (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is so tiresome, PBS. It wasn't that long ago we had this discussion, and it was pointed out just how pervasive "consistency" is. We talked about the preference for nouns over verbs; for singular over plural; and for sentence case over title case; for example. You may not feel that this previous discussion resolved things to your satisfaction, but I don't see why you insist on proceeding as though the discussion was never had. You were present at that previous discussion, and the text you're editing in is clearly at odds with points that were raised both then and now. Don't insult either of us by suggesting that you didn't know you would be reverted. This is edit warring, pure and simple. Hesperian 11:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of what you are labelling a s consistency are specific parts of the Naming conventions policy eg: "Where possible, use a single name". Much of the other examples given are either nothing to do with consistency or only come under consistency because there have been large changes to this policy which have removed specifics why you are now lumping under consistency. The wording I am suggesting does not remove consistency as a criteria but give it a description far closer to how consistency is used when considering names. However as Blueboar has open up a new section I suggest that we continue this conversation there. --PBS (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)