Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

---

Consistency December 20

See #Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009, Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions/Archive 17#Consistent Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 18#What is "consistency"?, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 19#Consistency_wording

Ok, PBS and I are in disagreement... his desired wording:

• Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

My desired wording:

• Consistent – Use names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

I am not sure if there is a way to compromise on this... I dislike PBS's language becuase it implies that consistency should be given lesser weight than the other criteria... and I feel it should be given equal weight (I think the problem with consistency is that many of our Projects give consistency more weight ... which I also disagree with).

We make it clear in the next paragraph that ... 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. I think this more than clarifies the issue... if the consensus at the local article level (taking into account, but not over-ruled by, any consensus at the project level) is to favor consistency over some other criteria, that is fine... but favoring some other criteria over consistency is also fine. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I am not sure why you think this needed a new section (the old section is still on the page), but I have changed the name from "(again)" as I think that carries a bias.

You write above "his desired wording" but it is clear from the section #Consistency 4 to 20 December 2009 that this wording was a compromise on an earlier wording, and that I am trying to reach a compromise on this. The wording you are proposing is by a large the wording which was put into this policy as part of a large edit and to the best of my recollection was not agreed upon before it inserted.

In the section you stated "In some topic areas (flora is a good example) there is a strong consensus in favor of using a consistent naming format..." and I asked you "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) 16:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume it means that, if we enshrine in policy that consistency is a criterion only when there is otherwise no obvious choice, then all these guidelines that insist on using consistent names even when it conflicts with the obvious choice (flora, monarchs and so on) are going to look weaker. Which in my view would be largely a good thing, but unfortunately the community is of a different mind - people on the ground actually like the consistent names (Victoria of the United Kingdom being a canonical example) - and we can't in good conscience state that something describes the consensus of editors when it clearly doesn't. (If we want to make this change, then we should have an RfC and get explicit community endorsement for our proposed way of doing things.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I started a new thread because I thought the old one had died. In any case... PBS is incorrect in stating that my preferred wording was "put into this policy as part of a large edit"... It was added as part of a very limited edit (here)... designed to word each of the criteria using the same language. You are correct that I did not explicitly discuss my edit before I made it (ie it was not "agreed to before it was inserted"), but my edit was based on how the discussion above was progressing at the time I made the change, and how I saw the consensus developing. (I will note that the edit changing it to your preferred wording was also made without explicit agreement... neither of our edits was "wrong" ... making a bold edit is fine until someone objects, then you discuss... which is what we are doing now).

The fact is, many Projects have a clear consensus for consistency in naming articles... we need to acknowledge that. It is also clear that there are articles in almost every project where the project consensus is not followed... we need to acknowledge that as well. Other projects may favor another criteria all together, and we need to acknowledge that also. In other words... the list of criteria is not a mandatory "must be followed" set of rules... it is simply a list of things we should consider when naming an article. Whether some should be given more weight than others depends on the specific topic, the projects that it falls under, and (most importantly) the consensus of editors working on the article.

Perhaps a solution to this issue would be to do away with the bullet pointed list of criteria all together... and simply discuss the various things to consider in paragraph form. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- Blueboar I wrote "The wording you are proposing is by a large the wording which was put into this policy as part of a large edit and to the best of my recollection was not agreed upon before it inserted." Here is the edit from the edit history. You wrote above "In some topic areas (flora is a good example) there is a strong consensus in favor of using a consistent naming format..." and I asked you "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." Perhaps if you will address this point we can work towards a compromise, but at the moment I do not see now my change of wording affects flora. I see it as a way of stopping muppets arguing that because one article is badly named (not following any of the criteria) it justifies naming another article in the same way. This policy should give a new editor an overview of the naming conventions and my compromise wording is closer to how this process works than the current wording. -- PBS (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip, you are completely confusing me. We seem to be talking past each other and don't even seem to be discussing the same set of edits. I am focused purely on attempting to resolve our disagreement over the one single line I posted at the top of this thread. I prefer one language, you seem to prefer a different language. Given that we both reverted each other at least once, we both seem to object to the other's version. Forget my comment about flora articles... I only mentioned them as an example of a project that has a consensus that favors consistency (I could have chosen a different one)... my objection to your language is that it appears to give consistency less weight than the other criteria, and I think they should all be expressed in a way that gives them equal weight, and the best way to do that is to phrase them with the same language.

I hope this explaines why I prefer my language ... whould you explain why you prefer the language that you prefer? Then we can both sit back and let others opine and then we might be able to reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was resolved some time ago. In any case, I see no consensus for PBS's change to the conventions. Different factors can dominate under different circumstances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar "my objection to your language is that it appears to give consistency less weight than the other criteria", but consistency does have less weight than other criteria (see muppet example above). Do you still think this change would affect flora? If so how? (I think flora depends on reliable sources, not consistency, it is just that some editors who edit plant articles prefer to use scientific names even if it is not the most common name. They do not argue that because one plant is named after a scientific name the next on on the list should be because it is consistent to do so, they justify it on the other criteria one of which is the wording in the flora guideline). So how will my proposed wording affect any reading of any guideline? -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"but consistency does have less weight than other criteria". No it doesn't. Nor does it have more. Nor does it have the same. There simply is no concept of weight here. These are just a bunch of criteria. When you have a specific example in front of you, then you can then decide how to apply these criteria, and a concept of "weight" might then come to have some meaning. The big difference between these versions—what makes this quibble worth fighting over—is that PBS is trying to introduce a concept of "weight" into this policy. PBS justifies this by claiming that the current wording implies equal "weight"; thus PBS justifies the introduction of "weight" by falsely claiming that it is already there. It is not. Hesperian 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

True; we say that all these things are desirable, and it is best to attain all of them simultaneously; if in practice consistency is set aside when we can't get them all, we should say so - but I don't think it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Hesperian) It is universal practice that one error does not justify another (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; we could say so here. On the other hand, one muppet article does not generate a pattern to be consistent with, so our existing language has the effect of encouraging reversion of such tweaks.

The center of contention on flora is what the guideline should say. Those who oppose vernacular names under any circumstances do argue that the use of English is an inconsistency; in addition, they have a very narrow notion of reliable sources.

For the record, I supported Blueboar's language some time ago, and still do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Precision example tweak required

At the end of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Precision and disambiguation, the example used for article title that are almost, but not quite identical is Streets of London (song) and Streets Of London (computer game), except that the minor difference between the two names, being the lowercase versus uppercase "O" in "of", is no longer true (actually not true since 2007)—the computer game has been moved to the lowercase "of", so the example is no longer proper. Someone think of an alternative.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Pine barrens and Pine Barrens (New Jersey)? But would somebody please check if the move of the computer game was reasonable? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I dream of the day that this (both for articles and section headers) all becomes case-insensitive; the hours that are spent in toto, let alone the Wikilinks missed or mislinked, from fiddling for the right combination of capitals and lower-case vastly outweighs the very occasional distinction between different articles using the same letters (which still need disambiguation somewhere). —— Shakescene (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I share that dream. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC at NCP

There is a request for comments active at WP:NCP's talk page, which is likely to be of interest to regular participants here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who don't speak gibberish (or else know at least a dozen meanings of "NCP"), that's Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Should naming conventions for people apply regardless of topic/project?—— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Goethe

Why does it say "but Nuremberg, ..., Johann Wolfgang von Goethe". "Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" is the correct German spelling. No Umlaut here, if I get your point right. 93.207.18.189 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

German uses both spellings; look at various German editions of Faust. (I don't think the spelling reform of 1996 changed this; we had someone insisting that we were in error in omitting the umlaut more recently.) English is consistent in spelling out.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to spelling, its about the only thing that English is consistent in :>) My favorite: How do you spell "fish"? Answer: "g h o t i" ("gh" as in enough, "o" as in women, and "ti" as in nation.) Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Er. That's "How do you pronounce 'ghoti'?". `Answer:"It's pronounced 'Fish'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Naming Convention argument

There's Yet another Naming Convention argument (YANCA) underway at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople). Am I really the only one who finds the Hydra that the various Naming conventions guideline have become to be ridiculous? The merger that started a couple of months ago was a great start, but it seems like that process ended too soon.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict/Dealing with historical contexts

There once was a guideline called "Naming conflict/Dealing with historical contexts", which was very useful. Naming conflict now links to Naming conventions, and the guideline got lost. Karasek (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it got redirected to this page. Is there something from that guideline that you think needs to be said here? Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. To me this part of the guideline was very useful: "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo. Example: The Polish city of Gdańsk was called Danzig for many years. The name "Danzig" is not the definitive term today, but it is correctly used in historical contexts (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name to refer to a historical place. For example, there are two distinct articles Edo and Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity." Karasek (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think that might be worth stating in its own guideline. Perhaps: Naming Conventions (Historical topics) ? Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCGN#Use modern names (which also says when not to). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah... no need for a new guideline then (although I could see the bit on historical context being beafed up a bit... it is kind of hard to spot in the paragraph). Thanks PMA. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The other phrase was, IMHO, far more precise and useful... and better to find too. Karasek (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a trifle long, and too uncompromising for policy (for example, it would rule out Italy for Roman Italia, which is pedantry); I am also reluctant to write any solution for Gdanzig into policy - in general, examples belong in guidelines. But if there is any convenient catch-phrase which you miss, we can work it in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The old guideline was very convenient to tackle a big mess like Duchies of Silesia, which were of Polish origin, but most often Germanized, founded outside of Poland and part of Bohemia and the HRE for the longest time. Since they were named after towns which became Polish after 1945 again these duchies now have mostly Polish names, although this doesn't reflect the historical situation. The old guideline was quite handy for cases like this. Karasek (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No. I will write no general instruction for one Eastern European nationalist faction to beat another over the head with. That is, despite the appalling behavior of Lithuanian, Polish, and German editors alike, not the intended function of these pages; least of all this page, which is supposed to give editors who have never even heard of Silesia neutral principles with which to decide such issues. If you could get genuine agreement on this, it would belong in a naming convention guideline on Silesia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a "general instruction for one Eastern European nationalist faction" (was this an insult?!), I just want a old guideline restored! I used this guideline exactly one time (didn't notice it earlier) and it was the only time that a agreement with a number of tag teaming and now blocked editors (+ a administrator who ignored naming conventions) was reached. This guideline could be the base for a naming convention guideline on Silesia. Karasek (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Then draft one, although it would be far more seemly to wait until the German tag teamers are also banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonder who the German tag teamers are, since I'm usually the only German who edits articles on Silesia. And since I'm much to inexperienced to draft such a guideline this mess will continue, especially since much more experienced editors refuse to restore fitting guidelines which perfectly solve this problems. Karasek (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the guideline PMA refers us to (WP:NCGN#Use modern names) not solve them equally well? In any case this is probably a discussion for WP:NCGN, since it applies specifically to geographical names (doesn't it?) I don't see why it would be any easier to find under the title "Naming conflict" (I never understood what that was supposed to mean - surely all these naming guidelines are designed to resolve situations where there's a conflict between different possible names?)--Kotniski (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this helps a lot, thank you. For unexperienced editors it's sometimes simply difficult to find certain guidelines, sorry. ;) Karasek (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Another good reason to keep merging the umpteen-zillion Category:Wikipedia naming conventions articles. People can't find the "correct" one, certain editors continuously add overly specific "rules", and there is a huge overlap in material between most of them.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with a place like Silesia, which lies within a broad, overlapping, boarder zone between different political entities, different language groups, different cultures and peoples, etc. is that, even in a historical context there were often multiple names for the same place (one in German and one in Polish). The broad concept of "naming according to historical context" is a good one... and should be made clearer in the NCGN guideline... but we have to accept that it isn't always possible. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase; I may know that paragraph too well to see where it is unclear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the very useful and long-standing Naming Conflict guideline was hastily "merged" with this page, largely because a group of editors didn't like some of its content. As such a lot of very useful material got lost, and some things that were agreed at the mnerging are subsequently being chipped away at by idealogues - see the argument on Ungareed changes above. The concept of historic naming is also based in the concept of using self-identifying names (ie what entities actually call themselves) - which some editors here want to eliminate. Xandar 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree... saying that articles on historical entities should be named in historial context has nothing to do with self-identification. When naming an article on a historical entity, we would still defer to what reliable sources (in this case, historians) commonly call the entity. Blueboar (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Signpost Policy Report

Responses by Kotniski

Well, I'm biased since I did quite a lot of it, but in my view the changes have made things much tidier, rationalized the division of information between this page and other guideline pages (where we had a total mess before), and most importantly, made this page better reflect actual practice in terms of the criteria for naming articles. There are still certain points of tension, but if the page is to reflect the will of the community rather than the preferences of a few interested editors, I think it does a much better job now than it did for many years.

Responses by Xandar

As someone more concerned with editing article pages than policy ones, I feel that this page has been far too much in flux - with constant changes being implemented by a small coterie of regular editors with too little stability, and too little consultation with and influence from the mass of article editors. This has led to some changes which fail to represent the actual naming practices of Wikipedia editors or other long-standing WP guidelines, and seem more to reflect the personal preferences that some of the regular policy page editors seek to impose. There is then a reluctance to discuss changes in a meaningful and non-personalised way. There needs to be a far higher threshold against the making of substantive changes by a handful of editors without widespread consultation.

Responses by Septentrionalis

This would appear to be about the usual rate of change for an active page: some, but not much. You have caught us in the middle of dealing with a repetitious editor, who, having gotten through an isolated name change by hammering at virtually every commenter who supported it, wants it written into policy, although nobody he hasn't canvassed agrees with him. Wikipedia as usual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by next user

Responses by next user

Responses by next user

A summary of your comments on our WP:Naming conventions policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next week's Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Any question you want to tackle would be fine, including: Can you summarize the page? How has the page changed over the last few months? Did the changes involve some compromising or negotiation? Would the page work better if it were shorter (or longer)? Is this page "enforced" in some useful and consistent way? Was this page shaped more by people's reactions to day-to-day issues or by exceptional cases, for instance at ArbCom? Does the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for content, or something in between? Does this page contradict or overlap other policies or guidelines?

A paradox of modern democracies is that voters generally have a low opinion of national politicians, but tend to trust and re-elect their own representatives. I think the same thing goes on with policy pages ... some people distrust policy pages in general but like the pages that they keep up with. The weekly Policy Report aims to let people look at policy pages through the eyes of the people who work on the page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay people, tell me how to proceed from here. Eventually, these weekly surveys will probably get a lot of input, but I don't know what to do between now and then. I can't mix my own commentary with a question-and-answer format; people generally expect one or the other from journalists, and mixing the two styles can come across as deceptive. I've got an RFC going and a notice at the Pump, but I haven't been getting enough responses the last few weeks to be able to put together something that a broad cross-section of readers would consider informative about the policy pages. Where do I go from here? - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A notice that you are asking these questions, and a link to one of these, is a perfectly good Signpost story.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel you have enough material for it, it is perfectly legitimate to write out what currents of opinion you see, with quotes to support yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but that's not the mission statement; I wanted to let people see the workers talking about their work, so they could get insight that's not available from simply reading the page. I can't do a column with the feedback I've got so far; I'd rather wait until more feedback comes in before I try. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions and NPOV: proposed amendments

To ensure that this policy fully reflects what WP:NPOV states, I'm proposing a number of changes. I've made them in the text and self-reverted to allow discussion. See here for the diff.

I have added a couple of lines under WP:NC#Deciding an article name to reflect requirements stated in WP:NPOV#Article naming. We already cover this to some extent under WP:NC#Descriptive names, but I think it's helpful to state it at the outset, since it's a key requirement. The additions are:

• In the list of requirements: "Neutral - Using names and terms in descriptive titles that do not suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue.
• In the subsequent paragraph (bolded text is the added material): "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. One exception to this principle is neutrality, required by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. See the section on descriptive names for more guidance."

The wording incorporates direct quotations from WP:NPOV#Article naming ("descriptive titles that do not suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue", and "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.")

Under WP:NC#Common names, I have added an internal link to a later section:

"Common names should not be confused with descriptive names . See descriptive names for examples of descriptive names and how they differ from common names."

I have also expanded WP:NC#Descriptive names along similar lines to the existing common names section to provide four examples of descriptive names. I have modified the order slightly to move two lines about inaccurate descriptions to the end of the section; they seemed to be in the wrong place, as they were in the middle of couple of pararaphs about neutrality. I have also added sentences verbatim from WP:NPOV#Article naming to explain why neutrality is required in descriptive names, which was lacking in this section. The amended material is as follows (bolded text is new additions, italicised bolded text is the addition from WP:NPOV):

Articles about a particular issue or event are often titled using a descriptive name. The following are examples of descriptive names used in Wikipedia articles:

• Bill Clinton presidential campaign, 1992
• Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic
• Expulsion of Germans after World War II
• Marathon world record progression

There may be a wide choice of potential descriptive names for an event or issue. Where articles have descriptive names, they are to be neutrally worded. A descriptive article title must describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For instance, a political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the government, but the article title is the more neutrally worded Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Another example is that the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be in common use. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the less accurate Tidal wave.

I'd be grateful for feedback. Hopefully these modifications will make sense - there is nothing really new here, just reiterating what is already said in WP:NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with the concept here... but I have a lot of questions as to application. For example... how do we deal with situations where a potential name is non-neutral, but is also clearly the most commonly used term in reliable sources. An example: Patriot (American Revolution). The term "Patriot" (used to discribe someone who supported American Independance) is by far the most common term (I would almost call it a "term of art") used by Historians ... and yet, we frequently get mini edit wars due to Canadan and British editors wanting to remove this term from our various articles relating to the American Revolution (To them the term is biased... from their POV the "Patriots" were rebels and traitors, and the true patriots were those Historians call "Loyalists".) Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We do already make an exception in Wikipedia:Words to avoid for certain terms when used in well-established historical contexts. For instance, the "Boston Massacre" was, objectively, nothing of the sort - the name was a piece of anti-British propaganda famously promoted by Paul Revere. If it had happened last March we would probably have called it the "2009 shooting of demonstrators in Boston" or something like that, as we do for many other current events articles. But because the non-neutral name is so well established and the incident was so long ago, there isn't really a justification for not using it. I think the situation you describe could be covered by adding something like:

In historical contexts, non-neutral terminology may be well-established among reliable sources. An exception may be made in such cases if it can be established that the terminology is commonly used in reliable sources produced by experts in the relevant field of knowledge. For current affairs, however, neutral terminology must be sought.

That would effectively reflect the situation that is described in WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal, where we allow the use of non-neutral terminology for specific historical cases where that terminology is used as standard in reliable sources (e.g. Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal). -- ChrisO (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, you are carving out exceptions to exceptions. Simpler to upend this, and note that in choosing a descriptive title (as opposed to a proper name like Boston Massacre), we must be neutral. Otherwise we run a risk of letting political correctness of one or another of our National Truths override our first duty - to communicate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Any thoughts on the rest of my proposal? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PMA. Neutrality is crucial when constructing descriptive titles. But when a topic has a widely used name, it is inherently neutral to use it, no matter how biased the name itself may be. There is nothing biased about calling a Whopper a Whopper. Hesperian 05:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true in most cases, but not in one important case I can think of - political nicknames. The policy already highlights the POV nature of "Attorneygate", a widely used name which was coined by partisans to impute a scandal and cover-up, and the alternative construction "Dismissal of US attorneys controversy". (-gate names are already deprecated in WP:WTA). I'm sure there are other examples. Such nicknames may be widely used but that shouldn't override NPOV's neutrality requirement. Do we need to add anything else to the policy to cover that, or is the existing reference sufficient? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

But if Attorneygate were the widely accepted name (as Watergate itself is, for example), it wouldn't be partisan to use it. I'm not sure any of that class of name have actually made it there (Filegate, perhaps); but that's a question of fact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• For a topical example, please see United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal. Calling this matter something other than a scandal would require too much linguistic contortion to the point that it would obscure the nature of what is being discussed and this seems to be the consensus of editors working upon that article. Words such as scandal, furore and affair are quite proper to describe matters such as this and the Tiger Woods story. They do not describe the outcome of the matter, which is often protracted, complex and debatable but correctly convey the amount of fuss and outrage which is associated with such incidents. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be called "scandal" - that's a word to avoid because it slants the article from the outset. See WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal. In cases such as this, we use "controversy". We're not meant to "convey outrage" about an issue; we're supposed to be a disinterested chronicler that, as WP:NPOV#Neutral point of view puts it, "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." See Dismissal of US attorneys controversy for a roughly comparable example. I'll propose a move for the UK Parliamentary expenses article, since its current title is plainly not neutral. There are quite a few other problems with the article, unfortunately. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the key here is to distinguish whether a topic already has a commonly used name or not. For most topics there is no commonly used name. When this is the case, we have a choice: We can choose between names used in sources, or we can make up our own name. I agree that in these situations, we should not insert our own POV on the event, and thus we should use terms that are neutral.

However, for some topics there is a commonly used name. In these situations we do not really have a choice in how we name the topic. The topic already has a name. The decision of how to name our article has been made for us. Essentially what started as a POV descriptive name has become proper name. If that proper name reflects a POV, that is fine because the POV is not our own.

Thus, if an event is commonly called the "X Scandal" by a significant majority of reliable sources, then we should name the article "X Scandal", even though the name reflects a POV. In fact, for us to use any other name would be imposing our own POV over that of the sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point to remember in all naming convention issues. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider... sometimes we may start an article with a neutral name... but then have to rename it towards a POV name to reflect a consensus (but POV) name that has emerged in the sources. Initially an event may not have a commonly accepted name, so we used a neutral title... the "X Controvercy" or the "Y Incident" for example. Over time, however, more and more reliable sources may begin to settle on calling it "the X Scandal" or "the Y Massacre". A POV discriptive name may become the accepted proper name for the event... and when that occurs, we need to reflect that and change the name we give to our article to that newly emerged proper name. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

¶ I think a slightly-different problem (which anyone's welcome to move to another thread or subthread) crops up when there is a historical name which is the only one by which one country or people knows something (as with the Boston Massacre or the South Sea Bubble), but which is far from universally accepted. The ones I'm thinking of are the Philippine Insurrection, the Black Hole of Calcutta and the Sepoy Mutiny — which Wikipedia happens to treat in three different ways. Americans don't even know there was such a thing as the Philippine-American War, and Englishmen might have difficulty recognizing the Indian Rebellion of 1857; on the other hand the Black Hole of Calcutta might seem loaded and POV to Indian or Bengali patriots. On the other hand, while "insurrection" clearly carries a POV implication (that the U.S. was the legitimate authority in succession to Spain), "Philippine-American War" might seem an overblown, heroizing term to some American patriots or friends of Filipino-American amity. So you have to balance (as the proposed language acknowledges) familiar terms with a neutral, dispassionate, detached point of view. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup... no one said naming an article is easy. This is where consensus comes into play. When there are multiple names to choose from, you have to examine the reasons for and against each and reach a consensus. To relate this all back to the issue of neutrality... In determining which name to use, we need to put aside our own biases and desires, and neutrally evaluate all the options. The end result may be that we choose a POV name... but our motives should be neutral in doing so. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that that directly contradicts the principles set out in WP:NPOV#Article naming: "Descriptive titles [may] suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." If an article uses a POV name, by definition it slants the article towards the POV being expressed in the name. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, because in this case we are not talking about creating a "descriptive title"... we are talking about using an established "proper name" (one contains a POV word) as a title... To explain what I mean more clearly... At one time we had an article entitled: List of massacres... it was filled with OR and POV problems. People got into huge edit wars over whether specific events belonged on this list. The solution was to rename the article to List of events named massacres, and impose strict criteria for inclusion... to include an event you had to cite multiple sources that actually used the word "massacre" as part of the proper name for the event. A source that mearly said that "the event was a massacre" did not cut it. For the events on this list, the word "massacre" had to be part of the proper name of the event. It is appropriate to entitle the main articles on these event using a POV word, because that word is part of the accepted proper name for the event and not a description of the event.

I realize that this is a subtle distinction, but it does go to show that we can not blindly say "All names must avoid NPOV terms". There are exceptions (and there are probably exceptions to the exception). Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. However, since using POV names (for whatever reason) is clearly not permitted by NPOV, we should avoid getting into a situation where NPOV and NC contradict each other. As a foundational policy, NPOV dictates the approach we take here, not the other way round. I think we should ensure that NPOV and NC are in sync at this stage; if there is a view that NPOV's wording on article naming needs to be changed, that needs to be discussed over on the NPOV noticeboard, not here. This proposed change is intended merely to ensure that NC reflects what NPOV says - no policy requirements are being changed, merely reiterated. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should not have policy statements that contradict each other ... and so have raised the issue at WT:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing

Getting back to the original proposal, does anyone have any objections to the wording that I have suggested above? If not, I propose to go ahead and add this to the page. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, I object. For example, at the start your change removes our preference for the general reader over the specialist, which seems quite satisfactory, and replaces it with an exception regarding NPOV for which there is no consensus, as discussed above. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. I've not removed anything from the page. The "general reader" statement is still there in a new paragraph. Please see [1] for the diff. This is purely about adding material to the page, not removing it. I don't think there's a single word that's been removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem I'd have with it. If we keep adding and adding to policy pages, we'll have (even more of) an unmaintainable, unusable mess. We already say that descriptive names must be neutral, give an example, and link people to NPOV for the full story. Why do we need to do any more than that? --Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the criteria listed at the top of the page are incomplete. Neutrality is a key criterion, required by WP:NPOV#Article naming. Yet the first mention of a neutrality requirement isn't until WP:NC#Descriptive names, halfway down the page. Omitting it from the key criteria is misleading and burying it under a subsection grossly underplays the importance of the requirement. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to nit-pick ... Neutrality isn't a key criterion... at least not yet. Your argument is that it should be. I would agree in some circumstances... but not in others. We need this to be discussed centrally as it involves two policy pages... may I suggest that we focus on WP:NPOV for now. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is a core policy; but it is not the only core policy. That does not mean we need list it here; we do not need to list every core policy here. Are there occasions on which the naming conventions, as they stand, and NPOV actually diverge? If so, we need to deal with those occasions, either here or there; if not, what Chris O wants is specifications for unicorn cages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifications for unicorn cages?... no prob... first you need a virgin, then you... Blueboar (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Silesia and Silesian Piasts

Hello, I would like to suggest some discussion about Naming conflicts in the Silesia region.

Since the second half of the first millenium the region was inhabited by Slavs. It was part of Great Moravia, Bohemia and since 992 of Poland. There are different opinions about when did it finally shifted from Poland to Bohemia again. Some sources claim that since 1202 it was an idependant region but it is a minor opinion. The main opinion, widely accepted in English literature, claims that it was part of the fragmented state (Fragmentation of Poland) since 1138 to 1327-1329 when king of Bohemia enforced his supremacy over the Piast dukes of this region which was accepted in several treties between the monarchs of Poland and Bohemia in the following years.

Since than Silesia shared its history with Bohemia up to 1740 when it was annexed by Prussia. After WWI Upper Silesia was divided between Poland and Geramny. In 1945 rest of the region was reassigned to Poland in Poczdam as an equivalent for Kresy and due to a Polish speaking minority.

It is a brief summarise for more check History of Silesia, Silesian Piasts and etc.

The problem is since when or even if German names of the towns, people and places in Silesia schould be used. When we come to Gdańsk we have a fixed date - 1308 (Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk) but in the Silesia case there are various problems with finding one.

First of all even after shift to Bohemia (itself part of predominantly but not exclusively German Holy Roman Empire) the duchies of Silesia were ruled by Piasts - the first Polish royal dynasty that ruled Poland for over 400 years. What is more it was the oldest branch of this dynasty. Some members of the dynasty germanised and some did not. For instance last dukes of Opole from the 16th century did not know German at all and ruled a predominantly (even still in 1945) Polish part of Silesia.

The Lower Silesian Piasts germanised faster though there is no fixed date to all of them and it is hard to find one even for singular members of the family.

The towna names also germanised for centuries. For instance Legnica was still called Legnicz and Lignitz in the 15th century and the modern German form of Liegnitz became predominant only in the 18th century. The same with Strzelin (15th century: Strelin, Strelen and modern German Strehlen).

The question is when to start using modern German names for that towns. Can we call a 15th century duke i.e Henry from Liegnitz when this name of the town did not even exist then? On the other hand schould we use the forms of Legnicz or Lignitz that were in use in those times (That would be the most apropriate from the historical point of view but quite misleading).

We cannot find one date for the whole region as the process of Germanising was unequal even in its different parts (It was the quickest in the south and west and slowest in the north and east along the Polish borderline). Yet there is an editor who changes the names of all dukes without any leading thought and without a discussion about the whole problem. He uses modern German names for people and places in the Medieval times when they did not even exist yet.

To avoid such situations I would like to propose a major discussion for the whole of Silesia so we could create some rules, similar as in the case of Gdańsk, and stick to them.

I will place this post on the Polish portal as well.

Best Wishes Opole.pl (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This may help... From WP:NPOV#Article naming:

• Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used (italics added)

In other words... the names used by English language historians may help resovle this issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, we would generally use modern names for modern things. While "Henry from [Insert the place name used while Henry was alive here]" is fine for articles about historical people, the article about the place itself (assuming it still exists) would be under its current name. It's Mexico City, not "Cuidad de México" (modern Spanish name), and definitely not "Tenochtitlan" (the Nahuatl name for the version of the city that existed in the 15th century). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all: some of Opole.pl arguments are partly wrong. The dukes of Opole, like all other Silesian dukes, were Germanized during the Middle Ages. Later however, after George of Poděbrady became Bohemian king and Czech the official language, big parts of Upper Silesia became Slavic again.

The different spelling of names in German documents of that time is caused by a) the missing standardization of German orthography back then, b) different periods of the German language (Early New High German, Middle High German) and c) dialects. All these documents are nevertheless written in German, the language everyone understood.

How the duchies could be part of a state which didn't exist is Opoles secret.

Here are a few facts with sources:

• The ruling Piasts were Germanized during the 13th and 14th century, were part of the German culture (Weczerka/p. XLV, Conrads p.99-100) and considered to be Germans (Conrads p. 99)
• Large parts of the country were Germanized during the 13th and 14th century. Already around 1350 the majority was German (Weczerka/p. XLV). The majority of the towns with German town law were German from their beginnings. (Badstübner/p.4) By the 15th and 16th century the Polish linguistic enclaves in Lower Silesia and the German enclaves in Upper Silesia were largely gone (Weczerka/p. LI, Conrads p.99).
• almost all duchies were independent and later part of Bohemia, member of the Holy Roman Empire. Almost no duchy was ever part of Poland (except for the Duchy of Oświęcim and the Duchy of Zator).

(sources: Weczerka, Hugo (2003). Handbuch der historischen Stätten: Schlesien, second edition. Stuttgart: Kröner Stuttgart. ISBN 3-520-31602-1; Norbert Conrads (1994). Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas. Schlesien, Berlin: Siedler Verlag. ISBN 3-88680-775-4; Dehio - Handbuch der Kunstdenkmäler in Polen: Schlesien, Herder-Institut Marburg and Krajowy Osrodek Badan i Dokumentacji Zabytkow Warszawa, Deutscher Kunstverlag 2005, ISBN 342203109X)

There is a set of naming conventions which applies here. WP:NCGN#Use modern names says "It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different language to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page)." There was also a now strangely gone (merged with WP:NC and deleted!) guideline at WP:NCON, which stated: "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo. Example: The Polish city of Gdańsk was called Danzig for many years. The name "Danzig" is not the definitive term today, but it is correctly used in historical contexts (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name to refer to a historical place. For example, there are two distinct articles Edo and Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity.".

Since the Germanization of large parts of Silesia and the annexation by Bohemia happened at the same time I see no reason not to use the corresponding dates for each duchy to switch from Polish to German. Karasek (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, then (to take Opole's Liegnitz example), that we should use 18th-century German names to refer to places in a 15th-century context? I have no objection to doing that if it can be shown that that's what English-speaking historians do, but in principle it seems rather odd - to use a name which is not applied to the place now and was not applied to it in the period in question.--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Opole.pl mentioned the different spelling of some names in old documents to support his claim that the transition from a Polish/Slavic to a German society took a long time. I in return replied that the different spelling of some names is no evidence of the ethnic composition during that time. I introduced these documents since one of the Wiki guidelines asked for "an historically accurate context", and, despite all mispellings, these documents are helpfull to figure out this historically accurate context. I think we should always, with some exceptions, use modern German names for the time between the annexation by Bohemia and 1945, and Polish names before and after that time.Karasek (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the first and most important rule is what Blueboar said above: Find out what modern scholars choose when they are writing in the English language. This single rule answers nearly all of these questions. If there's been serious division between scholars in the last ten years (more than "American historians use this, and British historians use that", since that's solved by matching the article's WP:ENGVAR), then come back and let us know what you've found. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with Karasek about the origin of the name Legnicz or Strelin. We cannot call them already German or still Polish they are something inbetween. The same was with Wołów form Polish Wół. In the 17th century the name Wolaw was still in use and the modern German Wohlau is of later origin. Therefore the process of the actual Germanising of Polsh words took much longer than it is suspected by Karasek. And again only Wieczerka as your source he has many controversial ideas which are not commonly accepted in the historical society. Mark that he does not even has a page on EnWiki. Opole.pl (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• This, on both sides, is arguing not about what these people and places are called, but about what they ought to be called; WP:NCGN rightly discourages this line of discussion altogether - and Silesia and the Gdanzig lameness are why it does.
• Please go have it on some other forum which encourages this sort of thing - both of you.
• I see only one matter of actual substance here, and it may be misleading: the article Moctezuma II quite properly refers to his capital as Tenochtitlan, not Mexico City. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, after all this, I am tempted to go over to the Polish Wikipedia and start a debate over whether it should use the English: Edinburgh, the Scottish Gaelic: Dùn Èideann, or the Scots: Embra or E'nburrie in their article on that city (which, in a clear demonstration of polskiphilic bias, they have entitled Edynburg.) Hmmm... Naaah. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Liz

For a requested move germane to this policy page, and of interest to many participants here, see Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Requested move. Hesperian 05:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unagreed change

Under Common names, Pmanderson altered the longstanding agreed sentence beginning "When there is no common English name..." (use the name the entity calls itself), to "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name..." He listed this in the edit summary as a "clarification."

I have restored the original wording, since this is not a clarification but an unagreed change to the policy. Official, and self-identifying names have a role in naming choices where the common name is problematic. Pmanderson would alter this so that the sentence would be practically useless, specifying that the only occasion where no clear common name exists is when the subject is "too rarely mentioned in English"! That is nonsense. It does not reflect what editors actually do. It therefore seems to act as a "wrecking amendment" to the paragraph. Xandar 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was part of the consensus that worded this section; our intent was plain. Xandar is attempting to perpetrate a minor ambiguity, in order to impose a meaning for which nobody except he himself has ever expressed support.

Is there any present support for this vaguer and less helpful language; does anyone else dispute that rare words are when there is no common English name - as opposed, say, to two? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point us to that consensus?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That would take a while, since it was some time ago, and this page is a merger of several pages. One of them was stronger than this wording and made no exception even for rare names.

But that is a historical question, on which I would appreciate good faith; even the strongest consensus in the past should yield to discussion now. So the active question now is:

Xandar's blanking would make this section applicable to such situations as: there are two common English names for a subject and an official name which is neither of them, and say that we should use the "official" name. Should we do so? Should we use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if United Kingdom and Great Britain are equally common?

This is not practice; can this page make it policy? Should it try? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The example PMAnderson gives is defective, since United Kingdom and Great Britain refer to two different (if overlapping) entities. (Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland and the Channel islands, while United Kingdom includes them.) In the vast majority of cases, official or self-identifying name is used to help make decisions where the "common" name is unclear and the self-identifying name is one of the choices. Inuit V Eskimo, for example, or First Nations v Canadian Indians. The original wording of the sentence more accurately reflects the far more extensive wording of Wikipedia:Naming conflict, when that page was merged into this. The wording of "Naming conflict" actually gave a good deal more general priority to the self-identifying name of an entity. Xandar 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I support PMA's change. The original intent was to cover situations where there was not a common English variant. As for the other issue... No, I don't think we should make it policy. In cases where three are multiple common names, in english, and there here are valid reasons to use each of them... I feel that, as far as policy goes, each is acceptable. Which one ends up being used should be left to consensus at the article level... a consensus that is informed by (but not necessarily determined by) the consensus at the various Wiki-projects that are involved with the article. As for WP:Naming conflict... that was a flawed guideline (which was one of the reasons why it was subsumed into this page). The over-stressing of "self-identifying names" was one of those flaws. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PMAs change would make the section nonsensical. If a body does not have enough references in English to have a common name, then it is non-notable, and should not be in Wikipedia. Therfore the reference to self-identifying names would have nil effect. This was clearly not the original intention of the wording, or of the long-standing policies that have been set out in this page. What was settled on was that self-identifying names can be used to help decide what name is chosen when there is no clear "common" name for an entity. There was NOTHING about "only when the entity is rarely mentioned in English." That is a wrecking innovation. Naming Conflict was not a "flawed guideline". It stood stably as central Wikipedia guidance for four years without causing ant problems. When it was merged into this page it was as part of a consensus that the present limited wording on self-identifying entities be retained. Xandar 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have entries on every administrative subdivision in many countries; many argue that we should have every lake in the world; we have all the obscure principalities that used to comprise Silesia. These have sources, but not in English. Hence this sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lakes do not give themselves self-identifying names or have constitutions. The passage was clearly not written about inanimate objects like lakes. There are also policies that cover the naming of historic principalities. There is no reason to limit the use of self-identification to a tiny minority of obscure cases such as this change would do. I also note that you have reverted back your unagreed change, contrary to policy with respect to policy page changes. Please restore the original version until a change has gained the wide consensus required for policy page changes. Xandar 01:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restore the original version? You mean this? You know, I am almost tempted. Blueboar (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• ;-> That version makes clear why we use lower-case, which I had always taken as an example of arbitrary consistency. Thanks; I'm putting it back in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The addition of "too rarely mentioned in English" looks like a significant change that was made without consensus. The previous wording should be restored until there is a new consensus.

On to that consensus: There is some ambiguity to what "no common English name" means. It should be clarified. I don't believe it should mean "more than one name, and it is not clear which name is the most common." "Too rarely mentioned in English" is one way to say that.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems everyone except Xandar is happy about PMA's wording (I am too). There is therefore certainly no consensus for Xandar's proposed change back. --Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I too found PMA's wording unobjectionable. I don't believe it was ever the intention of this policy to say "if you can't decide which name is most common, use an official or self-identifying name, even if it is not one of the candidates for most common." It might be possible to mount an argument in favour of this, but it is not proper to find this meaning in the previous policy wording if such meaning was never intended. That would be wikilawyering. Hesperian 12:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It was clearly the intention that self-identifying names be used as a means of determining article names where common name was not clear - as can be clearly seen from the former stable wording of policy. Altering this is a MAJOR policy change. This ridiculous and unworkable addition about "not referenced in English" was never seen before. As everyone here should know, to change policy requires community wide consensus. It can certainly not be changed by PMA - or a few editors who happen to be on the page. The wording PMA changed was a compromise on whhich the merging of WP:naming conflict into this policy was based. That agreement is not to be reneged on now. PMAs wording is new, novel, unagreed and specious. And it needs to be be removed until any such policy change is agreed. The use of self-identifying names is something that has always happened on wikipedia - as was proved in the last long debate on this issue. This must be reflected in this policy. Xandar 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In case it is not clear by now, Xandar has a favorite self-identifying name that he wants Wikipedia to use (he also has a pet agenda for the article in question, but that's a different dispute). Xandar has therefore been campaigning for self-identifying names (essentially by himself) for some time now, but there has never been consensus for them; there never even been a genuinely wide-spread opinion for them, merely a group of single-purpose accounts.

This wording represents both Wikipedia practice, the current consensus, and the approach taken, with universal consent, at Wikipedia:NCGN#Use English:

When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. An example is Livorno, which is now known more widely under its native name than under the traditional English name "Leghorn".

If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. It goes on to say If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If there is no such name in English, use the historical name that is now used locally.

This four-fold approach has existed there, in very much those words, since before I first saw it; it was a proposal, some four years ago now.

Xandar's claims are unsupported by evidence or by testimony. Until there is some independent support for them (and I don't mean the small group of POV-pushers he's been known to canvass on this and other issues), I see no reason to discuss this further; if he ever finds a second, may it be someone more interested in a reality-based policy. I am prepared to wait until after the holidays for such support - since I don't believe it will ever materialize; but if somebody wants to remove Xandar's dispute tag sooner, I will support that too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PMA is the one who is obsessed by a certain article name - and constantly wishes to change Wikipedia policies by stealth to try to impose his POV. There was no need for me to "campaign" for self-identifying names since the use of these names has been established wikipedia policy for many years. Thhe evidence can be seen in past discussions and the naming conventions themselves. Quoting an irrelevant guideline on using English, as PMA does to try to back up his point, is off-topic. That guideline IS about using ENGLISH names rather than the local variant, therefore it talks aboiut whether or not a name has a variant in English or not. It is IRRELEVANT to the current issue. Since 2005 Wikipedia Naming conflict - a central naming convention has said:

A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names... Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name"

The long-standing naming convention has always been clear on this matter. Self-identifying and official names have ALWAYS been a significant element of naming decision-making. When the pages were merged, the current wording (wrongly removed by PMA) was kept as a MINIMUM on self-identifying and official names. Additionally the Manual of Style, which PMA is barred from editing, restates the importance of offficial and self-identifying names in article titles. Therefore PMAs pretence that this is an unknown concept introduced by me is false. Trying to eliminate self-identifying and official names from policy for doctrinaire reasons is a majhor change which would need wide community involvement and support. Xandar 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Xandar quotes genuinely obscure text from a truly obscure guideline - now merged back into this page. Searching on it will show that, until Xandar decided it suited his Holy Cause, it was only appealed to in half-a-dozen cases - and, more importantly, when quoted (as, for example, by one of the bores who wants us to call the capital of Ukraine Kyiv) it has been routinely disregarded.

As for what MOS says: MOS has nothing to do with article naming, the subject of this page - which is just as well, since their product has as much collective vanity, and as little relation to what Wikipedia actually does, as...["The task of filling up the blank I'd rather leave to you"] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tag... one person disagreeing with everyone else is not a "dispute". I don't think we have had enough comments from others to say that we have a consensus... but we also don't have enough to a claim of dispute either. (actually, I will strike my last comment... reading the section again, we do have enough editors supporting PMA's edit to begin to say that we have a consensus on this). Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove the tag. You and three friends are not "everybody else". You are wrongly trying to change policy by stealth - and then hide the dispute. That is improper. Changes to policy require wide community consensus. Not just a small motivated clique of partisans who happen to be on the policy page. Since the prior consensus agreement is being reneged on, the people who input into that agreement, and others involved will have to be consulted. Xandar 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Xander... there was a clear consensus against your view at the old Wikipedia:Naming conflict page... and it is clear that you do not have a consensus here. Give it up. I am rapidly loosing Good Faith... your continued beating of this particular dead horse is becoming disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, there was not a clear consensus against "my view" on the naming conflict page. Just because you and friends stayed on the page 24/7 posting more, doesn't mean you had consensus. When we held a vote on the page there was no consensus for the changes you and PMA wanted. I am rapidly losing faith in your reneghing on agreements made when the pages were merged. So give up your attrempts to change loing-standing wikipedia policies by stealth. You know as well as I that policy changes need BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT - that does not mean a few people trying to sneak something through in an afternoon on a little-used policy talk page. If you want to eliminate the concept of self-identification, it will be opposed. What I see here is another attempt to bully and sneak through major policy changes wiuthout debate notification or community-wide discussion. That is what is disruptive. Xandar 01:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

True, broad community support does not mean "a few people trying to sneak something through in an afternoon on a little-used policy talk page." On the other hand, the existence of meaningful opposition is not demonstrated by a single opposer who rustles up a couple of scaly mates to vote with him. StormRider and NancyHeiss were never here before you asked them for help, and have never been here since. Their sole contribution to the development and maintenance of this policy was to pop in, support your position without having read any discussion or given it any thought whatsoever, and then bugger off again. Meatpuppetry notwithstanding, support for the current wording is unanimous-minus-one. I call that "broad community support". Hesperian 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Hesperian) Xandar, please do not give your fellow editors orders.

Beyond that, our guidance has not endorsed the concept of self-identification (except when Xandar and his Xealots have gotten to work), because it is fatally POV: not only does it endorse an organization's view of itself above other views, it quite often endorses one view of what the organization's self is.

And, for the last time, policy is not what this page - or any page - says; this page is an effort to describe policy, which is what the bulk of Wikipedians are agreed to do. When we are not beset by some essentially nationalist point of view, we consistently reject self-identification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Sept, Blueboar, Kotniski, and many others. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately the agreement of a handful of people, who seem to think they OWN the policy page, does not change Wikipedia policy - nor is it "Broad Community Agreement." I know the position of PMA, Blueboar Kotniski etc on this. However their position is NOT policy, nor do they have a right to change policy on an issue that affects all editors 99.9% of whom do not lurk around the talk page of this policy.

Affected editors have an absolute right to come here and take part in discussions, and to be notified to do so. Don't complain to me about starting up the self-identifying names argument again. PMA and Blueboar re-started it by altering the agreed wording that was acdcepted as a compromise when the pages were merged. It is quite clear that WIkipedia practice and long-standing policy and guidance give a place to self-identification and official names in the naming process. I can repost all the examples that were raised in the earlier lengthy discussions if you like. And yes, I may be just one editor at the moment, I'm the one whose seen the change and complained about it, but a lot of editors have had a voice in this argument over the past year - and the fact that they do not lurk permanently on this page does not mean their views do not count.

So far there has been no real discussion about the reason for this wrecking change or the arguments for and against. I really think we need to get a stable form of wording that recognises the fact that self-identifying and official names have a bona fide role in naming decisions on wikipedia. If we can't agree this, then don't blame me for starting this argument, which i thought had been settled, all over again. Blame yourselves. Xandar 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"PMA and Blueboar re-started it by altering the agreed wording that was accepted as a compromise when the pages were merged"... what "agreed wording"... what "compromise"? As near as I can remember, I have consistently opposed your stress on "self-identification" as a criteria for naming articles. I certainly don't remember discussing any kind of "agreed wording" (can you point me to where that was?)Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been long discussions of this issue on the "Naming conflict" talk pages, archived here, and also on the specific page set up to discuss a possible merger of that page with this - which now seems to have disappeared. In any event the merger was clearly consented to dependent on the agreed wording.

On the issue of the merger, (NCon2 archive) I posted:

The issue of self-identification would still need to be properly dealt with, however. Xandar 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar responded (my empasis)

Absolutely... one of the resons why I like the idea of merging is so that ALL the issues relating to how we name articles can be examined, discusssed and debated in a centralized location... and that would include the issue self-identification. Hopefully, we will get more people involved in the discussion at the policy level so we can break the deadlock.

The only thing I will ask of both sides is ... Please don't enter that conversation with a pre-concieved language or outcome in mind. As I see it, the entire point of merger is to determine what the current consensus on naming articles is, not to debate what the older consenus was. Consider the view points of others, and be willing to compromise. We want to create a policy that will last... one where there isn't a need for all these subject related "exceptions" and contradictary guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like we were getting a promise of stability. Later Blueboar said:

I would say that there is some degree of consensus where self-identification is concerned... but I don't think the version that Xandar prefers accurately reflects that consensus. He gives too much weight to self-identified names, and not enough weight to names used by reliable sources. When these are in conflict, we should follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This reflects the wording that has just been removed rather than PMAs replacement. As does Kotniski's response (my emphasis):

Considering that the "long-standing" version of this page never even said that self-identifying terms should be used as article titles, and that the policy at WP:NC now mentions self-identifying names (as a possible factor where there is no common name) which it never did before, I think those who believe self-identification important ought to be more than happy. Is there anything else on this page which is sufficiently valuable to be retained in a guideline and which isn't now covered at NC or elsewhere? --Kotniski (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it was on this basis that we accepted the merger of pages. Nothing resembling PMAs new addition was agreed or considered. Xandar 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

random break

I for one never agreed to cut a deal on this issue. If others did, which I dispute, I don't consider it binding. This policy can't be sold, because no-one owns it.

"it was on this basis that we accepted the merger of pages". Who is "we"?

Hesperian 02:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if there was such a "deal" (which I don't think the evidence actually supports, although I think that other people of goodwill could read the same things and come to a different conclusion), Wikipedia's most relevant policy says plainly that consensus can change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Xander... reread the exhanges from the Naming Conflict page that you just posted... What you and I agreed to was to continue discussion on the issue (which we are doing now), but it seems clear that I was not supporting your stance on it, and neither was anyone else. Both there and here, you are the only one calling for giving this kind of weight to Self-Identification... everyone else who has commented so far has been opposed to it. I would say that indicates a consensus against.

There comes a point where continuing to push for something that every one else is clearly opposed to becomes disruptive... see WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Blueboar. I wanted a stronger line on self-identifying names, such as that reflected in the wording of Naming conflict. However I and others who thought that self-identifying names should at times trump "common" names agreed to settle on wording that when there was no clear "common" name, then self-identifying names should be used as a factor in deciding artic;le names. That was clearly agreed to by those negotiating the merger, and was placed in the merged page by defenders of your position not mine. It wouldn't have been put in unless there was agreement to it. This new change is therefore a breach of what was agreed at the time of the merger, and a change in your position since you (and others) were clearly in agreement with the merged text. The statement that I had no support for my position is entirely untrue, since there were a considerable number of supporters for the use of self-identifying names in the discussions and votes on the page.

So if it is now admitted that what is proposed is indeed a new change to the policy wording agreed and put in place at the merger, then my questioning of it, and demand for proof of broad community support for such a change is perfectly legitimate. I would ask what reason there is for such a change, what proof there is of the practice of wikipedia editors reflecting this change, and what proof there is that this change does not in fact run directly against the practice of wikipedia editors. Xandar 03:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not novel; it is a clarification of what everyone understood and intended the policy to be when it was introduced, as the comments here should make clear. Xandar's later objection is not rendered significantly less solitary by his canvassing, which continues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not really matter who's view is "the original" or who's view is "a change"... even if we accept Xander's view that there was some sort of agreement that Self-Identification should trump common names, or be a default if there is no common name (and I don't think there was), consensus can change. It is clear that the current Consensus is against Xander's view. The fact that this current Consensus is in line with original intent and prior language is gravy.

Xander... If you would like to determine a larger consensus... instead of canvasing for supporters, may I suggest you post to the Village Pump, or file a formal RfC. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A significant change is definitely being made/proposed here, not just a clarification. There is no evidence at all that the "clarification" is in line with any previous consensus or discussion. As such, it requires considerably more input and discussion than just among the talk page regulars. If no acceptable compromise wording can be worked out here, then much wider consultation on the proposed change will be needed. However Christmas/New year is not the best time to get the greatest input. Xandar 00:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons for thinking this no change; Blueboar has given his for thinking (what is also true) that it doesn't really matter. If Xandar can find any independent voice who thinks otherwise, we can reconsider this; pending a second, however, let us consider this matter {{resolved}}. If there is a discussion at the pump, or elsewhere, do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What is an independent voice? Surely, you and the tribe would not be considered "independent" since it appears you vote in block. And the bloke (Hesperian) that accused me of "buggering" off and voting without ever reading anything....since when did God start editing Wikipedia. To be blunt, Hesperian, you don't know jack about me. Please keep the personal comments off this page.

The reason I favor Xander's position is because I find it more accurate. The loose language proposed by Sep introduces too broad a doorway for mischief. For example, the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the official name of the church. However, Mormon Church is probably a far more common title/name. Heck, it is even more commonly referred to as The Church of Latter-day Saints more often by those outside the church...the words Jesus Christ seems to stick in their craw and thus they drop them. As Xander quoted above, entities have the right to call themselves what they choose. Attempting to wrap it an attack on "official" names is a red herring or using the logic of inanimate logic is simply inappropriate and is obviously stretching the credulity of neutral editors.

In addition, if we are looking for just "common" names, what is the purpose of encyclopedias? The purpose is to inform not leave readers to the stupidity of slang and street knowledge of lowest common denominator. (Agreed that the American education systems seems to cater to the lowest common denominator and anything above average be damned, but that is another story entirely). I reject attempts to dumb down Wikipedia and, more importantly, introduce ambiguity into the that which is supposed to guide editors that seek to improve articles. --^StormRider 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Independent voice? Let me start with the obvious: Not a voice solicited by Xandar; not one who has precisely the same article title as the subject of his seventh most common talk page edit.

Unlike Xandar (whom your superior education has led you to misspell) you do present an argument, but a fallacious one. First of all, "street usage" is a red herring; this page observes that our policy is to follow the usage of reliable sources, which is the common usage of the educated. That is the common usage of the English-speaking peoples - unlike France, we have no other test for what our language is; we have no Academy to write our dictionary for us.

The rest of Storm Rider's post is American politics - and the self-pity of a minority. Really, can't we leave partisan shibboleths like "dumbing down" and "the words Jesus Christ seems to stick in their craw" off Wikipedia? If we wanted to be at the Fox News site, we could find it; Wikipedia even has an external link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors seem to be some people's stock-in-trade, rather than negotiation. And there is a lot of pot and kettle in this argument. StormRider is another editor involved in this discussion from the start, and has a right to be informed about attempts to change the wording of the policy page. Most of the people supporting PMA also have registered views on this issue, and are therefore no more "independent" than Stormrider or myself. The point is that there is an attempt to change the wording of policy on a significant issue by a small number of people. This attempt does not reflect the practice and usage of Wikipedia editors, and is therefore not proper. So far there has been no attempt to come to a valid agreement on why such a change would be needed, how it reflects current wikipedia practice, how it melds with other guidance, and what sort of wording would satisfy the needs of all contributors. Work towards an agreeable compromise on wording on this topic needs urgently to take place - without the personal attacks. Xandar 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Geez, this is back again? Does someone really need to go looking to establish topic bans here? Get over it, whatever "it" is, and find a way to work together. Sheesh!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Back again - due to an unagreed change made to the compromise "solution". Xandar 00:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correcton... We are back to this again due to Xander disagreeing with a change that everyone else seems to agree to. Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you would prefer to trade insults, I am more than willing to comply...but I must confess that I view as playing with mental midgets, but alas if that is the only language you and your other knuckle-dragging cohort comprehend, allons nous!

It does seem odd that an attempt is made to scream consensus when so few editors have commented. Then when a single editor, me, comes back to the table during the holidays, a distinctly unsavory reaction is met. Is that ownership or just a total lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies? It seems like ownership, but I will assume good faith and guess that it must be ignorance (though with not much patience). How would you like to begin anew? More insults or a collegial, cooperative attempt to arrive at productive conclusion?--^StormRider 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am always willing to reassess consensus and see if something needs to be worded differently (that is the entire point behind "consensus can change"). So, if you would like to re-examine the pros and cons of "self-identification" as a criteria for naming articles, and see if we can reach a new consensus on it, I am absolutely willing to do so (and if so, I suggest we do so in a fresh thread). Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to re-examine in a collegial and non-personal manner the validity of the recent unagreed (by the community) change to the wording, made by PMA, and the way to come to an acceptable form of wording that actually reflects the usage by Wikipedia editors of self-identification as a naming factor. We can do this in a new section, but I think it needs to be on this page, since subsidiary pages have an unfortunate habit of disappearing from the record. Xandar 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. There's still you - and now the voice you canvassed - against every other commentator, all of whom like the new wording and many of whom agree that it was the original intent - as it is practice. When you get an independent second, we can consider whether any modification needs be made to acknowledge the interpretation you invented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear what the original intent of the wording was - and it is not the specious addition PMA added a few days ago. That has been proven by the archives. PMA and a small number of fellow talk-page habitues cannot change global policy behind the scenes. If there is a change to what was settled and established, then it has to be a) approved across the community, and b) reflect what WIkipedia editors actually do. PMAs wording fails on both counts. As stated above, we shall have to see if a new consensus can be reached on the issue of self-identification. Xandar 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear what the original intent of the wording was. Now, whatever else may be true, that is not; it was not clear. For Xandar has his opinion on what that intent was (although he has no evidence); those of us who wrote it disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You may disagree now, but the record is against you, and as has been said, such disagreement is pointless, since we need to work out what the position remains currently with regard to self-identifying names. And your wording does not represent it. Xandar 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the present wording represents exactly what we do about "self-identifying" names; it does not describe what Xandar and his sidekick would like to do - because nobody else agrees with them that our article names should be propaganda. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Vulgar" and "pedantic" titles

I have been bold and made this change to the first paragraph of the common names section which stated:

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. This means that the name chosen for an article, while in common use, should be neither vulgar nor pedantic.

The third sentence, "This means that the name chosen for an article, while in common use, should be neither vulgar nor pedantic" doesn't follow from the first two sentences at all. I really don't know what it meant, how it could be applied, or how it was instructive. The most common name of many articles are "vulgar" (to some), and at the same time, are properly used as the title, as reflected in reliable sources which also do not shy away from the "vulgar" title or use a euphemism—to wit, our article on the words fuck or cunt, on the film Gayniggers from Outer Space the song Fuck tha Police, The Vagina Monologues and so on. I suppose that this might help someone choose the article title sexual intercourse over "fucking" but I don't think this is the right way to do this and this certainly doesn't do it with any clarity or differentiate between that type of naming concern over the examples I provided above. As for "pedantic" titles, I imagine this is meant to imply we don't use what some would think of as the technically correct title, but it does a poor job of conveying that.

The language was first added by this edit "per talk", which as best I can make out resolves on this discussion though no specific language was discussed. The language I have replaced it with does follow, introduces the examples that appear directly following it, as well as presage what people will find if they delve further into specific subsections such as WP:MOSTM and WP:NCP etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit demonstrates, in fact, that he did understand the sentence, and does not show how he disagrees with it. I suppose it can just as well be a separate paragraph now. The Vagina Monologues is what reliable sources, and works of general reference call the play; until someone genuinely uses this passage as an excuse for censorship, we should not shy at shadows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied that Fuhghettaboutit's examples prove the sentence to be false. I think we would lose nothing of value by deleting it. But I'm not so sure Fuhghettaboutit's clarification is an improvement. Hesperian 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the original sentence was flawed... the example of "Fucking" vs. "Sexual intercourse" illustrates why... I find the first vulgar, and the second pedantic. Both are common ("fucking" is probably more common in general language, but "Sexual intercourse" is probably more common in sources we would call reliable). Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see it still says "Article names should be neither vulgar nor pedantic." While at least vulgar is no longer linked deductively as emanating from commonality, it still is incorrect. Article names should be vulgar, when that is the common or even proper title. Sexual intercourse verses fucking is one place where we can turn to decorum because we're not talking about a vast disparity in commonality, or using a non-standard euphemism to censor the proper name, but the statement remains incorrect as to all of the other examples I gave previously and it has little to do with commonality at all. "Fuhghettaboutit demonstrates, in fact, that he did understand the sentence, and does not show how he disagrees with it." Please read what I wrote again. I was able to deduce what might possibly be meant from a logical chain that was a non sequitur and demonstrated that it is conflicts with how we actually treat "vulgar" titles, which are proper for many subjects.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the words themselves. Vulgar means "Having a common and offensively mean character; coarsely commonplace; lacking in refinement or good taste; uncultured, ill-bred"; that is, too base to be proper. Similarly, a title is pedantic when it is too high-faluting to be proper. Thus, the sentence as a whole reminds us that limits exist, but does not say what they are - that is a matter for the individual articles to decide. If this misunderstanding is widespread, or this language is abused for censorship, then indeed we should recast; what is the evidence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Question re: "official" title with spelling error.

There's a Korean pop album that's currently under The First Blooming. However, the actual correct title is The First Bloooooming (with 5 o's — see the cover), and the Korean page lists it as such (ko:The First Bloooooming). Should the page be kept under its current, correctly spelled title or be moved to the officially correct but incorrect-in-English title? SKS (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No reason it shouldn't be at the accurate Bloooooming title. c.f. Inglourious Basterds, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song. --Golbez (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The correct title (see the example of Gulliver's Travels above) is what independent reliable English sources call it. What is that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The correct title of the Statue of Liberty is Liberty Enlightening the World. Fortunately, in this section, we aren't talking about using common title vs actual title; we were apparently talking about if we should preserve misspellings from the original title. And yes, we should, unless a common title has vastly overruled it (see: the Statue of Liberty and Gulliver's Travels) and is not completely inaccurate (i.e. imo it would be wrong to call the Willis Tower the Sears Tower; that is not its name, people need to catch up with that fact. It's not a descriptive short name like Statue of Liberty or Gulliver's Travels is.) --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing — as it's a Korean album, it would be hard to find any independent reliable English sources, especially as it wasn't a breakout album. The closest thing I can find is this online retailer's listing having the title correctly spelled. In terms of the K-pop blogosphere, a majority of fansites and blogs have used the correctly spelled title, but that's not gonna help with this. :P A majority of Asian retailers list it as the incorrectly spelled title.....

A note, though: After a search in Google news, it appears that "The First" is supposed to refer to the fact that it's the group's first album, and that the actual title is "Blooming", per Korean news sources. Of course, none of them are in English. SKS (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say "Bloooooming" is the correctly spelled title. That's the name they chose for their work, and there is not an overwhelming English version to overrule that. --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The entity has named itself, Bloooooming, and should be respected. They knew how the word blooming was spelled and consciously chose differently. It seems like Wikipedia would be patronizing to change their title. --^StormRider 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we would be patronizing (and condescending) if we used the official name in defiance of common usage (preferably English, but Korean if this is not discussed in English). So the question we should be asking - and seem to be converging on an answer to - is "what is the common usage?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course a closely-related question (implied in much of the above) is the most likely name under which the average reader would search for them (a strong argument, by the way, for keeping Sears Tower; one New York skyscraper is still best-known as the Pan-Am building), although redirects can handle much of the confusion. And I think The First Bloooooming (unless contrary evidence appears) has to be taken as the correct title; would anyone think of correcting the spelling of the The Beatles? While we spell Warsaw differently from the way it's spelt in Polish Wikipedia, I think that this would be a place where Korean Wikipedia's lead should be heeded and probably followed; there's no common, everyday English-language spelling of this group as there is for El Greco, Rome, Copenhagen or China. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects Covering Metropolitan Areas

It came to my attention that WikiProject Chicago coordinates work not only on articles relating to the City of Chicago proper but also the much larger Chicago metropolitan area. I suggested that the WikiProject therefore be renamed "WikiProject Chicago metro", or something similar, as "WikiProject Chicago" gives the false impression that the WikiProject coordinates work only on articles related to the City of Chicago proper (See that discussion here.) The response I received was that renaming was unnecessary because no other city does so, which I feel is argumentum ad populum--a logical fallacy. As I wrote, why not use the term that includes both, rather than the one that excludes the other? This would seem to be a more accurate naming convention. This issue is important to me because while I am located within the Chicago metropolitan area, and I am interested in many articles involving the Chicago metropolitan area, I am not necessarily interested in articles related to the City of Chicago proper. Looking through the membership of the WikiProject, most members appear to be located within the City of Chicago proper; so I wanted to move this discussion to a more general, perhaps less biased, forum that has less personal interest and involvement with the particular city or metropolitan area in question. I am proposing, as a general naming principal, that if a WikiProject coordinates work only on articles that relating to a city proper, that it is fine to name it "WikiProject City" but if it also attempts to coordinate work on articles relating to a larger metropolitan area, it should be named "WikiProject City metro". With such a convention, there would be nothing to stop anyone from creating a more narrow "WikiProject City" within a "WikiProject City metro" focusing only on articles relating to the city proper. I would very much like your feedback and consideration of this proposal. Thank you for your time and assistance! Squideshi (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added this discussion to {{Centralized discussion}}. I oppose such a change in naming conventions. I assume that almost all city WikiProjects also cover their suburbs and exurbs. No name change is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not in disagreement on at least one point--I also assume this is currently the case. I am proposing that this should be different and have provided some specific reasons to support the need. Most arguments in opposition have been appeal to tradition. Squideshi (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not part of article space, so the naming conventions on this page do not apply to them. The members of each individual Wikiproject are responsible for establishing the scope and name of that project.—Jeremy (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council would have been the best place to discuss this issue. I wasn't sure when I started the conversation; but there is currently a link from that talk page to this discussion, so the appropriate people there should be aware of this discussion. Incidentally, do we have consensus that WikiProjects "are not part of article space, so the naming conventions on this page do not apply" to them? Should we go ahead and put that quote somewhere in this article/page? Squideshi (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary policy/guideline creep. Imposing such naming conventions is overkill that doesn't change anything substantive. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is technically correct. WP:CREEP states, "Instruction creep occurs when stated requirements which don't reflect true community consensus nonetheless appear on official guideline or policy pages." Nothing regarding this proposal has yet appeared on any official guideline or policy page. In other words, I started this discussion in an attempt to achieve consensus and prevent instruction creep. Squideshi (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not an WP:NC issue. WP:COUNCIL is the closest set of related pages, and every precedent there would oppose this. WikiProjects have absolute control over which articles they work on -- which is to say that groups of editors have exactly the same rights as individual editors. If the members want to call themselves "WikiProject Chicago" instead of the more accurate "WikiProject Chicagoland", then that's their lookout. If other editors feel excluded by the project's choice of name, then the project is really only hurting itself. Editors that don't care so much about the city itself might want to look over WP:WikiProject Illinois. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This confirms what I said above about a possible better place for discussion of this issue. In regards to precedent, I would classify that as appeal to tradition. Squideshi (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The primary issue is that the group has a human right of free speech (specifically, self-identification) to choose its own name (within the limits of Wikipedia's terms of service). This cuts both ways: They cannot force you to change your name to User:Squideshi-in-the-suburbs; you equally cannot force them to change their name to WikiProject Chicago metro. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a free speech issue. The right to free speech is not an absolute right and is reasonably regulated in certain cases. For example, in the United States, you can't threaten to kill the President of the United States. Wikipedia has a right to regulate speech in some cases. I would argue that it even has a duty to do so in other cases. For example, one member sexually harassing another is a good case for regulation of speech. Now, this does not mean that regulation in the form of a naming convention for WikiProjects covering metropolitan areas is automatically a good idea--just because an organization can regulate speech does not mean it should do so. The real question is what evil would be prevented? Without going too far into this, let's postulate that the evil here is "confusion" of editors. Wikipedia then needs to make a decision as to which is the greater evil--(1) the confusion or (2) a narrowly-tailored regulation designed to serve the interest of the community as a whole. Isn't that what just about all policies and guidelines are about? Aren't most all of them a form of speech regulation? See Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH. I mean, there are rules--Wikipedia is not anarchy--and there is always the safety valve of ignore all rules. See Wikipedia:NOTANARCHY. Incidentally, just out of curiosity, are WikiProjects permitted to self-identify with vulgar, racist, or profane names; or is this type of "speech" already regulated? I suspect that these would already be examples of regulated speech here. Squideshi (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly places some regulations on names that users may choose, but the criteria for unacceptable names are quite narrow (and irrelevant), even users with unacceptable names are always allowed to choose any acceptable available name, and Wikipedia never forces a user to give up an acceptable name.

There simply is no process for allowing you to change other people's perfectly acceptable names to something they have refused to be called by. The principle applies equally to all users, whether the name in question refers to a single user or a group of users. "WikiProject Chicago" is an acceptable name under all of Wikipedia's terms. If you can't convince them to volunteer for a name change, then it won't happen. Please consider the advantages (to you) of accepting the defeat of your proposal with a little grace, and stop trying to re-write the rules to gain an advantage in a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue then becomes what constitutes an acceptable name and what constitutes an unacceptable name. I would argue that a name that causes confusion can be inappropriate. Isn't that why the whole public body of patent law exists? In any case, the issue isn't about asking someone to give up an acceptable name--the issue is about deciding if a name is acceptable in the first place. I would further argue that this proposal isn't about an individual--it's about WikiProjects. WikiProjects aren't people with rights. They're legal fictions without natural rights. They only have the rights given to them by the entity that permits for their creation, just like corporations. They are only allowed to exist because they serve the interest of the community. WikiProjects exist by the good grace of Wikipedia, and they should never be permitted to do anything that harms Wikipedia. It's not really a matter of individual rights. The members of the organization are distinct from the organization itself. I do recognize that the individuals have rights; but they voluntarily give up some of those rights when they choose to join this community. If they don't want to do so, then no one is forcing them to remain involved in Wikipedia. There is simply no individual rights issue involved here. Now, that having been said, I believe this whole line of argument has gotten off track. There shouldn't be any doubt that Wikipedia has the power and right to regulate speech. The only real question should be on the merits of the proposal itself (i.e. if Wikipedia should exercise the power it has the right to do in setting a naming convention.) I do recognize that the consensus here seems to be against what I have proposed; and I respect that, but I do not think it shows a lack of grace to continue to respond to issues that are raised. Trains of thought and belief don't simply stop because a one-time consensus has been achieved. To suggest that it is somehow distasteful to express those thoughts and beliefs borders on censorship. Don't support the proposal if you don't want, but please don't ask me not to continue to make a case for my own proposal. Last, I do not believe that I attempted to re-write any rules to gain an advantage in this debate. You may disagree with some of my interpretations of existing rules; but that's an entirely different story. Please don't make unfounded accusations. Squideshi (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy will tell you what Wikipedia considers to be an acceptable name. As "WikiProject Chicago" does not mislead editors into thinking that the project is a bot or admin, is not promotional/commercial, is not offensive, and is not disruptive -- the four disallowed categories -- then it is not inappropriate.

As a side note, you seem to have misunderstood what a patent is. Perhaps you meant trademark? And you might wish to read a bit about freedom of association, which is the right of individual humans to choose whom they associate with and how they choose to identify themselves and the group that results from their association. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, does Wikipedia:Username policy even apply to WikiProjects? Second, WP:CCC. Note, I'm not saying that consensus has changed--merely that it can change; thus, assuming that the username policy does apply to WikiProjects, the very point of this particular discussion was to determine a new/changed consensus. In other words, in essence, the discussion was intended to determine if the policy needed revision in the first place.

You're right about the difference between patents and trademarks. I meant to write trademark, but I made a mistake and wrote the wrong thing. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I am aware of the right to freedom of association as a human right. This is actually an issue that I have studied quite in some depth when working on election reform and laws relating to the regulation of political parties here in the United States. The fact is, like so many other rights, it is not an absolute right--it is subject to regulation when the community can justify such regulation for the greater good. In addition, you seem to be confusing rights in the general public sphere with what rights people have here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a public organization. It is a private organization, and while it strives to remain very open, Wikipedia users and editors are subject to whatever policies and guidelines the community so adopts. These policies and guidelines do not constitute rights violations because, frankly, no one forces anyone else to remain active in the Wikipedia community. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Remaining active is voluntary acceptance of all policies and guidelines so adopted, which I note, does not imply that community members can't work to change the same. Squideshi (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, why bother with things like this--or is this is symptom of some hidden dispute about actual encyclopedia content? DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has their own sphere(s) of interest. This issue happened to fall within my own. I think the categorization and classification scheme is every bit as important as the content. Squideshi (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what was said above, especially with respect to this probably being the wrong forum. It's also worth pointing out that both the project page and talk banner clearly state the coverage of the city & metro area. Without any evidence of editors being confused, or prohibiting each other from working on material, or any real content issues occurring here I'd suggest creating some some relevant redirects to the project page and moving on. If you're not interested in writing articles about Chicago proper, then don't, no one can force you. Not all material in a project's scope has to interest you to participate. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason for this. WikiProject Chicago works with things related to Chicago. It doesn't really matter if it's the city proper or metropolitan area. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw something out there, but what about "WikiProject Chicagoland" (as that's what the greater Chicago metropolitan area is colloquially called)? –MuZemike 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the "WikiProject City metro" format is better because it is standardized and can be re-used for other metro areas, whereas "Chicagoland" is a term specific to use in Chicago. In other words, I don't know for sure, but I don't think there is a "New Yorkland" or "Los Angelesland"; but I don't doubt that there is a "New York metro" and "Los Angeles metro". Feel free to let me know if I am wrong about that. Squideshi (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's "La-la Land" for LA, and NYC might prefer to call itself the city. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That rename would expand the coverage of some projects. In Vegas, the metro area, depending on definition, goes well beyond the valley which is generally the areas all of the those who participate in the project generally include. So I'm far from convinced that this is a good idea. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No one proposed that all WikiProjects related to cities would need to rename to "WikiProject City metro". If "WikiProject Las Vegas" doesn't cover the metro area, then as I proposed, "WikiProject Las Vegas" would indeed already be accurate and without a need for change. The only cases in which I proposed the new format are those in which the metro area is actually covered. Squideshi (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A project may wish to include immediate suburbs in its remit but not the entirety of the metro area, which might include several counties, including some non-adjacent to the city's home county. Powers ^T 14:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I oppose this suggestion that a WikiProject named after a city should focus only on the city itself. A city's surroundings are nearly always highly relevant to the city itself. I have found a similar trend in articles on cities that refuse to so much as mention anything on the wrong side of the city limits, and it's a disservice to our readers. WikiProjects should be similarly flexible. Powers ^T 14:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since WikiProjects are in "organizational space" and not "article space", the issue of what to name a given WikiProject is a matter for consensus, not policy. The place to discuss what to name the project (and its scope) is at the Project page. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I find this distinction very useful. Thank you. Squideshi (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If a Wikiproject wants to keep an eye on articles peripherally associated with their main interest, and such talk page tagging is not disruptive, then it should be allowed to do so. The members of the Wikiproject are the ones doing volunteer work to improve articles. If Wikiproject Chicago wants to improve the coverage of Category:People from Schaumburg, Illinois they should be thanked, not pestered. Speciate (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to tell a WikiProject about a city that they have to change their name if they want to cover the suburbs, or restrict their coverage to the city limits if they refuse to change their name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What if a competing WikiProject were to come along, interested in working only on articles pertaining to the city proper--not anything in the metropolitan area? Would the first, less accurately named WikiProject, have claim to the name, simply because they were there first? Squideshi (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can start a Wikiproject, so if someone started a project on the Chicago metro area that's fine; it would not affect Wikiproject:Chicago. There are many examples of multiple Wikiprojects with overlapping scope. To regard them as competing is strange to me; Wikiprojects do not own the articles within their scope, and anyone can edit those articles whether or not they are members of the Wikiprojects. Each Wikiproject has the goal of improving the articles that it identifies as being within its scope, so where two projects overlap in scope it simply means that they share the common goal of improving the the articles that fall within the overlap. —Jeremy (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the opposite example? What if someone wanted to start a WikiProject Chicago, which focused only on articles related to the city proper and not anything in the metro area? Again, would the first, less accurately named WikiProject Chicago, which includes articles related to the metro area, have a right to prevent use of the name simply because they were there first (i.e. Does the former have a right to force the later to accept a less than accurate name, simply because of time order?) In other words, could someone create a "WikiProject Elvis" that, for whatever reason, focused only on articles related to Belgian cheeses and thus prevent an actual WikiProject interested in Elvis from using the name? Squideshi (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The only real problem with the scope of Wikiprojects comes when someone applies potentially controvercial Wikiproject to an article for POV reasons (say, for example, placing the article on Barak Obama underWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, or placing the article on the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks within the scope of WP:WikiProject Secret Societies). Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Contribute by adding different language names

We have an article Lion in wikipedia. Now Lion is known as Sher in Hindi. can we contribute to Wikipedia by having a table. with the language & what it is called in that language. so that a google search on either sher or lions focusses on this link 202.138.120.38 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go to Lion and look at the left-hand side of your screen, you should see a link to hi:सिंह (पशु). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict between COMMONNAME and UE

User:نسر برلين recently performed a very controversial move (clarification: controversial primarily because of double-movement) of Hameur Bouazza from its common usage to the literal translation of his name from Arabic. A thread has been started at ANI. I can't link to it due to technical issues, but the section title is the user's name. Anyway, the admin that got there first declined to do anything, stating that because it is the English translation, and Hameur is the French translation, there was no problem with the move. I'd never really thought about it, but I'd always assumed that we go by the common name; Thierry Henry is not Terry Henry.

Am I right in believing that the common English usage should superceed WP:UE? WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The thread in question is WP:ANI#User:نسر برلين.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just a simple but common misunderstanding of WP:UE: the name commonly used in English is precisely what WP:UE wants you to use.

Trying to call names unused in English-language texts "English names" is incorrect linguistic prescriptivism, and labelling names used regularly in English-language texts by English-speaking authors "not English" is incorrect linguistic prescriptivism.

Follow common use in English-language sources, and you satisfy WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:V. Knepflerle (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If we really meant the most common name, rather than the most common English-language name, then nearly the entire encyclopedia would have to be renamed into Mandarin (the most widely spoken language in the world). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should we rename?

I have a thought... What if we rename this policy... to WP:Article titles or something similar? It stikes me that conceptually a "Name" has connotations that evoke strong emotions that I don't think are evoked by the concept of an "article title". The two concepts are very similar... but I don't think they are quite the same. More importantly people seem to get worked up about "names"... in a way that I don't think they do about the more dispasionate term "title". Such a change would also make it clearer that this policy is not really talking about the article subject's name... the policy is talking about how best to entitle our article about the subject. Yes, sometimes the best article title is the subject's name... but not always. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more than reasonable. Knepflerle (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It won't solve everything but it reframes the question of where an article should sit more accurately. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I see some ways of this being used by WP:TEs to perpetuate problems (e.g., "Well, the page name can be that, but in the text of the article you still need to do it my way..."), but I think that overall this might be a positive thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, next question... if we did this, would we apply the "title change" to all of the myriad topic specific "naming guidelines" (potentially a huge task)? If so we definitley need to file an RFC on this, post it at the Village Pump, etc. and get wide community input. Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The change to "Article titles" makes good sense to me. I don't see a need to retitle the other "Naming conventions (xxx)" pages, though, since by and large they do contain actual naming conventions as the term is understood by most people.--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POLICY has a suggested pattern for proposals and other significant changes, and it might be worth following it here (suitably modified), just so that no hair-trigger admin panics about an "undiscussed page move of a long-standing guideline" before actually checking the talk page for discussions. A little advance warning is sometimes valuable, and I wouldn't want to see anyone blocked over a silly misunderstanding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I am going to post a formal RFC on this (below) to see if we can get additional comments and (hopefully) wider community support (or at least let the wider community know we are considering this). I will leave out the suggestion that we also rename the various topic area conventions. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC on proposed rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Naming conventions → Wikipedia:Article titles — To more clearly communicate the scope of the page, which is more like 'what Wikipedia puts in the URL', than 'what the True™ name is'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed: Rename WP:Naming conventions to WP:Article titles or something similar.

It stikes me that, conceptually, a "Name" has connotations that evoke strong emotions that I don't think are evoked by the concept of an "article title". The two concepts are very similar... but I don't think they are quite the same. More importantly people seem to get worked up about "names"... in a way that I don't think they do about the more dispasionate term "title". Renaming the Policy would make it clearer that this policy is not really talking about the article subject's name... the policy is talking about how best to entitle our article about the subject. Yes, sometimes the best article title is the subject's name... but not always. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 11#Requested move -- PBS (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rename. In addition to the reasons given in the above discussion, I would add the following:

1. This page only talks about the names/titles of articles. So be being specific that this is what we are talking about makes things clearer.
2. Policies and guidelines are all about "conventions" to a certain extent so this one does not need the word in the title. Putting it in the title is being inconsistent with the other policies.

I know the term "naming conventions" is a common one but I think the reasons of clarity and consistency outweigh this consideration.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support renaming in favor of less drama and more immediate clarity for people that have confused a thing's Real Name™ with the letters we're putting in the URL. (Obviously, we'll need to keep all the redirects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Blueboar and my comments above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Question. If we go with something like WP:Article titles, are editors going to be looking for WP:File titles, WP:Template titles and WP:Category titles (Currently a redirect that probably should be moved if this proposal passes)? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've seen this policy be misused to refer to names in places other than article titles, this would be a good fix. File titles and template titles have slightly different issues. --GRuban (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment this should be a requested move not an RFC, if nothing else because the people who view that page tend to be the people who decide on the day to day moving of controversial pages which is when this policy page comes into its own. As this is a key policy page it should be very widely advertised (probably as an RFC as well as an WP:RM and on VP etc etc). This is not a move that should be made unless it is very widely advertised and there is a clear consensus to do so as we have seen what happens when a small group decides on restructuring without wide community consent (Wikipedia talk:Attribution) -- PBS (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • We can do both here; it'll take two edits to add the RM tag and then clean it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: makes it clearer what the scope of this page is. --Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I see no problems with the move. It is a more accurate title. Xandar 11:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Great idea. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nice and straight forward. Makes it clear too that the title of an article on a subject is not the "one-and-only official Wikipedia name for that thing that all references to that thing must adhere to", etc.. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support More approachable, less technical --Cybercobra (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that this discussion is titled "RFC on proposed rename" and not "RFC on proposed retitle", suggests that "Article name" or "Article naming" may be better titles than "Article title". Also much as one might like to argue that is is just "letters we're putting in the URL", that is not true because we do not name articles with a random string of characters, instead the name/title of the article is placed in bold in the first sentence. -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason for my choice of words in creating this RFC is that we currently call the process of changing a title "renaming". I could definitely see how changing the title of this policy might have a wider impact but that is a debate for other pages and another time. More to the point, we have not changed what we call that process yet... so I continue to use the term so people know what I am talking about. Ultimately, it comes down to this... written works (such as encyclopedia articles) have "titles" not "names"... so that is the word this policy should use. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As the tab at the top is called [move] and the request is called "requested move", the process on Wikipedia is called moving a page not renaming a page. This is not a paper encyclopaedia, and usually one refers to a "page name" on the WWW (or for an the technically minded a URL) not a "page title". Have anyone advertised this anywhere else other than as an RFC and a RM for example at the village pump? --PBS (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I do understand your point Philip. And I agree that when it comes to things that we routinely refer to as "pages", (talk pages, policy pages, etc.) it is appropriate to refer to "page names"... but when we are talking about "articles", I think it is more appropriate to use the older dead tree phrasing of "article titles". If you accept this concept, then I was actually correct at the start... we actually are talking about moving the name of this page to WP:Article titles, as this policy page is about how to entitle our articles.

As for notification, I posted a comment at the VP pointing to this RFC (see: WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC at WP:NC). No comments as of today. Is there anywhere else you think we should post a notice to? Please feel free to do so yourself. Something like this should be advertized widely and discussed fully by many many people. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WAID and Blueboar. - Dank (push to talk) 04:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support; sure, have a go. We can always move it again if we decide we don't like it after all. Hesperian 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Precision.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support I have seen many discussions that I think would have much more low-key if the debate was clearly perceived as about the title of the article in Wikipedia rather than the "true name" of the entity described by said article. ¨¨ victor falk ^talk 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - agreed. --^StormRider 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would prefer "Wikipedia:Article title conventions". Powers ^T 13:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Great idea. I think it will take a lot of the heat out of the relevant debates. -- Avenue (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but I assume that the promoter of the change realizes that Xandar and Storm Rider read a confirmation of their own sectarian views that are not obvious to the detached reader. 93.97.143.144 (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Next step?

I don't think we are anywhere close to "closing" the RFC (I think we need a lot more comments to claim community consensus... either for or against)... but if, when closed, the consensus is in favor of changing the title of this page... what is the proceedure? I want to be sure we do this the right way. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone just moves it. (An admin, if it turns out the new title has history.) It's only a name title change, not a major revolution (unfortunately?). --Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Snow already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves remain open for seven days. I am willing to close the request and carry out any necessary moves. Are you also proposing renaming all specific naming conventions? If so, please place a notice on the talk pages of all those. Ucucha 15:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, just this one, at least for now. If other pages want to change their titles, that can be done at a later date (IMO, ideally after people have had some time to get used to this change). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that... one step at a time. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time...

In anticipation of the move (seeing strong support and little objection I am assuming it will take place), I have gone through the article, replacing the word "name" to the word "title" when that is what we mean (and leaving the word "name" when that is what we mean)... however, it would be good to have someone check my work. Feel free to revert if you think I acted too soon. Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.