Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:Article titles
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 4)
Latest comment: 20 years ago by Leonsimms in topic Saint vs. St. in place names
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Name of the article about a nationality: singular or plural (Tatar vs. Tatars)

I am surprised the issue is not discussed earlier. Some nations go singular, some plural. (Some nations have names without this problem: Roma and Sinti, Sami.) Below is a discussion from Talk:Tatars. IMO the issue must be resolved here once and for all. Mikkalai 21:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why singular title, not plural? --Shallot 11:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • By a misunderstanding. "Tatar" is a representative of the "Tatars" nation, and there is nothing more to write about the term "Tatar". The original article was about the nation. Wikipedia:Naming convention specifically speak about usi singular an plural in the title. Specifically, plural is used when the name is used only in the plural. The name of the nation is "Tatars", not "Tatar". Hence I am moving the article back. Mikkalai 20:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • On the second thought, 90% of cases of mentioning a nationality is an adjective, and it creates inconveniences when creatig references: It is an easy way to refer "tatars" to "tatar" by the bracket trick: [tatar]s, but not vice versa. An additional confusion is that tatar may refer to language as well. So I see a grain of wisdom in Shallot's decision now. In any case, before any further article renaming I am putting the issue for discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Mikkalai 21:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should be any different from the standard policy - not only is Tatar also usable as an adjective, but presumably one member of the Tatars is Tatar? (I know nothing about the topic, so feel free to tell me that this is not the case.) Thus the standard reasons apply for using the singular in the title - ease of linking, consistency across the project, etc.

People seem to constantly question this policy, but I see almost no circumstances under which we need make an exception. It would seem to me that bacteria were something almost always discussed in the plural, but you can have one bacterium, and so that is where our article should be. If you're not convinced, follow the same logic through for ants, or chickens: sure, we could have a mixture, but where would you draw the line? So, if it's possible to have one Tatar - i.e. the s is a genuine plural, not a linguistic oddity like physics, et al - then that should be the name of the article. If you come across any other examples that break this rule, you have my support in moving them. - IMSoP 21:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and note if you haven't already that there is a seperate page dedicated to this rule with its own discussion, to which this discussion should perhaps ultimately be moved. - IMSoP 22:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and note that was exactly my reference, if haven't read my argiments about tatars above: "tatar" an "tatars" are different notions: tatar is a person, tatars is a nation. Mikkalai 22:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid the distinction doesn't carry for me: surely one instance of the nation of Tatars is a Tatar, in just the same way that one member of a colony of honeypot ants is a honeypot ant? I think it is far tidier to use the same convention throughout, and simply use the singular whenever feasible, but I guess I may not represent the majority on this. See also (once I've saved it) a more general comment I'm preparing in another browser-tab as I type this one. - IMSoP 22:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Identity

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could Hyacinth or someone else explain to me the rationale for these conventions, perhaps giving some examples? It seems to be concerned with general terminology, not article naming in particular (which is what the page is about, I think?). —LarryGilbert 21:47, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

This is very much a big issue in article content, but is also a current naming issue. MSM, which was about the term "MSM" which refers to people, now redirect to Gay sex the activity, which used to be Same-sex sexual practices, which used to be Homosexual behavior. The convention as stands is written by me and will most likely be opposed by some and need to be worked on. Hyacinth 22:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Same/different sex/gender

I would put forward and advocate that the use of the "same-sex" and "different-sex" be changed to "same-gender" and "opposite-gender". Not only does it remove any connotation of "different" being at times seen in a context of "normal" and "different" but also more cohesive to many of the issues surrounding gender and gender identity. For example, what about issues and articles which discuss people who are inter-sexed (i.e. people with indetemrinante gentalia or gender)? The term gender is more expansive and inclusive and takes into account the issues surrounding gender and how they relate to chromosomal sex and the social construction of gender. On a more grammatical and pedantic note, it is also less ungainly than saying for instance "same-sex sex" or "different-sex sexuality". Lestatdelc 23:19, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

What is the opposite-gender of inter-sexed? anthony (see warning) 23:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Your question goes to my point. What most people use "sex" as a descriptor for is in actuality "gender" which is a psychological and sociological construct. Hence the need to use that term since in such cases, chromosomal sex is disconnected to gender (the outward presentation of masculine or feminine, etc.), not to mention that intersexed people can often be of indeterminate sex, so their gender is how they are perceived both externally and how they perceive themselves. The suggestion about "opposite", vs. "different" is because there is (especially in certain "contreversial" context) and implied POV or bias within the term. Something being "different" can often within a social context be mildly, or even overtly negative. I posit that the terminology I have suggested is non-bias and better segues into the issues when discussing sex and gender within the context of trans, intersexed people and so on. This is also how many sociologists and people in the mental health field are defining things and trying to establish a more clear schema of terminology for and surrounding such issues. Lestatdelc 23:52, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
Can you dig up examples for "opposite-gender" being recommended by sociologists and mental health techs? Also see: User:Hyacinth/Style guide.Hyacinth 00:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am at work at the moment and I would literally have to dig out and try and find some of my old papers on the issues of gender terminology when I was working for an advocacy group when we were going to be testifying at a city council meeting here in Portland when a transgender anti-discrimination ordnance was being discussed (and passed), but off the top of my head you can check out The mission statement of the APA's div 44 group on transgender issues not to mention the joint resoultion on ussage of "gender" instead of "sex" when such issues have come up when crafting a bill in parliment. There are also a lot of stuff I would have parse through again when I was sifting through the APA's discussions about Gender dysphoria and how it relates to trans issues. There is a lot of discussion in the litaratre when merge the DSM-III-R categories of Transsexualism and Gender Identity Disorder of Adolescence or Adulthood, Nontranssexual Type (GIDAANT) in the DSM-IV but I don't have anythign handy on it at the moment. Lestatdelc 00:42, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Replacing same-sex with same-gender seems extremely questionable to me, particularly when it comes to sex (the action). Because same-sex usually refers to, excuse the word, same plumbing, same with different-sex. Same or different plumbing leads to certain technical things, nothing more and nothing less. Same and different gender on the other hand leads to a number of questions, including those of identity, identifying the relation (no matter how long- or short-lived it may be) and some more. In Human sexuality the two things are mixed up, leading to rather confusing information. (But then, the article is very confusing anyway.) Two people who have the same gender can have same-sex sex or different-sex sex, depending on the particular plumbing of both. Although most of the time it will be same-sex sex, which makes the replacement with same-gender even more pointless.

Also, when talking about other stuff, it makes also sense to describe exactly what you are talking about. The marriage question for transgendered people is seen as a question of "same sex" for some, especially its opponents, and "different gender" for others. So replacing "same sex" with "same gender" would in this case too, produce a false description. I'd say instead of some broad half-baked PC replacement, which does work even worse than the expression it replaces (which does not work too well, either), same-sex and different-sex should be replaced where necessary and with whatever term actually makes sense in a given context. -- AlexR 20:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point, could you write up a short guide for when "same/different(/opposite) gender" is appropriate and when "same/different sex" is appropriate? Hyacinth 21:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

"Short guide" is not so simple, because especially "same and different sex" is used in various meanings:

  • Same and different physical sex, which can only be partially changed, compare the arguments about chromosomes which are often used for example to declare marriages, usually of transgendered people, as invalid.
  • Same and different anatomical, particular genital sex, which makes sense when talking about sexual activities (but only then); although refering to say, sex between a lesbian couple where one partner happens to be a pre-op transwoman as "different sex" would be seen by many as extremely insulting, see Talk:Homosexuality. Also, the sex taking place would in all likelihood not be quite the same as ordinary male-female sex; the transwoman involved at least would probably not be particularly interestes, even if the hormones usually taken would not prevent that in most cases, anyway.
  • Same and different legal sex Tricky, because many documents and laws do indeed refer to sex instead of gender, so technically, these terms are not entirely incorrect, although "gender" certainly makes more sense here.

Since the problems with "same and different sex" only apply to transgendered and many intersex people, though, which are a minority, it would probably make sense to stick to "same and different sex", especially when talking about medical or legal matters and only add that matters can be more complicated when transgender and intersex people come into play at all.

Same and different gender makes sense to use when talking about identities or gender roles, but are tricky when refering to medical or legal matters. In relationships between people (not just with significant others, but between all people), it is gender that counts.
The only exceptions are either particularly obnoxiously impolite people who know the other person to be transgendered or intersex and who insist on refering to them as people of their birth gender; or transgendered people who are very bady adapted to their new gender role, although that is in almost all cases a temporary problem.
And of course there are usually "gender problems" for transgendered and some intersex people before they transition or even know the name for the problem, but that is of course the core problem of transgendered people.
I don't think it makes sense to refer to these exceptions very often.

Another problem of course is to be certain what exactly is same sex or same gender when refering to many transgendered and intersex people (different is usually not a problem). Even if we stick to peoples self-identification and the appearance of their bodies, which by no means all people do, many transgender and intersex people do see neither their bodies nor their gender (identitiy and/or role) as clearly male or female, making it rather difficult to find people who are "same sex" and/or "same gender". As I already said in Talk:Homosexuality, different-sex, different-gender gay (or lesbian) relationships are just as possible between transgendered or intersex people and cisgendered people as different-sex, same-gender gay or lesbian relationships or same-sex, same-gender gay or lesbian ones. And that is just self-definition descriptions.

So a "short guide" might be a bit of a problem. The only solution is to decide in each case what exactly one is refering to at the moment and use the proper words. Proper words are probably more than just same/different sex/gender, though. -- AlexR 23:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Lists of pieces

Lists of pieces has a format borrowed from Lists of solo piano pieces, which lists pages by composer, style or period, and nationality or culture. Now a list of pages itself and every alphabetical page clearly violates the "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" convention, example: List of solo piano pieces by composer: G. Do we add lists such as this as an exception to that convention or make the "lists" one list instead of many? Hyacinth 08:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jr., Sr., Inc., etc.

I would like to recommend an addition to the rules for personal names. I suggest we follow the standard practice in the United States, as set forth in the Associated Press Stylebook, and omit any commas preceding suffixes such as "Jr." and "Sr." in personal names as well as suffixes such as "Inc.," "Ltd.," and so forth in company names. acsenray

  • That's not "standard practice", it's one of two equally acceptable standard practices, one of which uses no commas, and the other of which places them before and after the "Jr." or "Sr." element. (Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 6.49). - Nunh-huh 21:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Medicine

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since the start of WikiDoc (continued in Wikiproject (Clinical medicine) there have been discussions whether articles on medical conditions should be named by their scientific title (myocardial infarction) or their common names (heart attack). Arguments in favour of common names:

  1. The articles are easier to find
  2. Most readers are not medical professionals

But there are also arguments in favour of redirecting these terms to articles titled by their scientific terminology, such as is common practice in Chemistry and Biology articles:

  1. Lay terms are imprecise. "Heart attack" does not specify what part of the heart is affected, and by what mechanism.
  2. Lay terms are bound by geographical constraints (many diseases have different names in different parts of the world).
  3. Some terms are suggestive of something that the disease is not (heartburn is not cardiac, nor does it involve burning).
  4. Nobody has ever died from being redirected

I've previously raised this on Wikipedia:naming conventions (common names), eliciting only a response from people whom I'd informed. Hopefully it will find more of an audience over here.
JFW | T@lk 12:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I would note that "It is in harmony with the general Wikipedia policy of using naming common names." is another argument in favor of common names, and a strong one too. I don't see why the article can't just be at the common name but use the technical name throughout in the body of the article, with the first sentence saying something like "a heart attack, known technically as a myocardial infarction is ..... Myocardial infarctions are .... etc. I don't see any strong reasons not to conform to policy of placing the article at the most common English name. Nohat 23:59, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Considering Naming Conventions

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

How and by whom are the "Conventions under consideration" (Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Conventions under consideration) under consideration? When and how are they adopted or abandonded? Hyacinth 21:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy on how draft policy becomes policy. Normally someone knocks up a page, with an "is a draft" notice. It gets knocked about a bit for a few days on the talk page and then becomes stable. Shortly afterwards people start refering to it as policy, and the "draft" warning gets quietly dropped. So its a natural organic evolution usually. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Still I have a question: Specifically, this isn't a page (article), but simply sections (headers) of a page, and there are many "Naming Conventions Under Consideration" which are definitely not under consideration, making it a total misnomer in those cases. Is there a precedent for how long something goes without comment before it is assumed to be unapposed? To provide context, I am specifically thinking of Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Album titles, Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Pieces of music, and Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Identity. Hyacinth 23:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I assume it's a sort of thing like Postel's tradition naming Internet standards RFC (Request for Comment). The actual decision-making process at Wikipedia is vague, to say the least, so there's really no point at which it can ever be said that anything is in any state other than "under consideration." I assume that, Wikipedia being Wikipedia, you could always delete the phrase "Under Consideration" and see whether anyone reverts it. Since it's not likely that changing the phrase would have any noticeable effect on how actual editors actually give names to actual pages, it doesn't actually matter much. Dpbsmith 21:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Seems like a pretty good assessment. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Suffixes

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How should the naming of pages deal with suffixes. For instance, neofeudalistic, neofeudalist, neofeudalism, and neofeudal, could all have articles. Obviously some suffix is required, at the least -al. This has important implications for both the grammar, content, and neutrality of articles. For instance, Neofeudalism has to describe one disputed (in wiki and in the external world) "movement"/"trend"/"goal"/"belief", while neofeudal could describe a variety of otherwise unconnected things. Hyacinth 01:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Being as this is an encyclopedia, I think the default should be the noun form of the word. MK 05:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed so, as suggested by our preference for the gerund form (swimming over swim). —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 11:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Airports

I just stated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports and I had wondered about naming conventions. This is the proposed style: [Proper Name of Airport] [Place Name] [Type of Airport] Airport, thus the airport for Toronto would be Lester B. Pearson Toronto International Airport. The other possibility is [Place Name] [Proper Name] [Type of Airport] Airport. What do you think? Burgundavia 03:08, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest going with the complete and correct name of the airport, followed by location and then the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) identifier. So, for Toronto, that would be: Lester B. Pearson International Airport (Toronto, Ontario, Canada )(CYYZ). Colin
If you're talking about article titles, I think that would be a little much. —Mike 04:15, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

First name/last name ordering in article titles

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I can't believe I couldn't find this in Wikipedia:Naming Conventions... On the talk page for Talk:O. Henry, HamYoyo suggested that "the page ought to be filed under "Henry, O." I wanted to point to the naming convention that says that in Wikipedia article titles, names are given in normal order rather than inverted order (surname; comma; first name; middle-name(s)-or-initial(s)). But I couldn't find it! Where is it? Dpbsmith 18:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

We always give names in the "natural" order, hence "George Washington", "Mao Zedong", "José Ortega y Gasset". -- Jmabel 20:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I know we do. What I don't know is, where we say that. Dpbsmith 23:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
We probably don't say it anywhere. Wikipedia policies are only written down when they are unclear or liable to dispute. A policy which has been unconditionally and unconsciously agreed to date is unlikely to be written down anywhere. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:08, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Any definition of name-part ordering that does not reflect the nationality of the individual concerned is probably doomed to failure. DIfferent countries have different formats for name order: personal-name usually precedes family-name in the west but will follow the family-name in much of Asia. Similarly scandinavian counties don't use a family-name but are based on the personal-name of the same-sex parent. First-name is a null concept therefore, and the term surname has particular connotations which should be unacceptable on a world-wide usage basis. It could be useful however to have a page detailing a standardised format for each country/nationality rather than attempting such a thing globally. --VampWillow 20:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
It appears to make the category pages a bit of a mess. --bodnotbod 22:54, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
Use the "pipe trick" to sort names, see the User's Guide. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 16:25, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Sure, but I was trying to respond to a (fairly) simple question about our established practices with ordinary Western-style names. Even in the complex cases, the principle is that we use the commonest, most familiar presentation of the name. The point is, we just use the name as is, rather than trying to rearrange it for collating purposes. And what puzzles me is that I haven't located where this practice is spelled out. Dpbsmith 23:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
We mostly go by most common name (this should be somewhere in the guidelines) in English. There is no way that Henry, O. is more common than O. Henry. Dori | Talk 06:03, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Minor correction to VampWillow: The only Scandinavian country to still use patronymics by default is Iceland; at least in Sweden and Finland family names are now the only lawful surname types. Also, patronymics are always based on the father's name, regardless of the sex of the child. -- Jao 19:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Theorems and "lemmas"

If you were to go to List of lemmas, you will find that they are all listed as "XXX's lemma", with a small L. However, many redirect to pages with a capitalized L. I know that Urysohn's lemma was actually moved to Urysohn's Lemma. This all confuses me, and I posted a comment on the talk page there.

What is the convention for titles of theorems, paradoxes, lemmas, and the like?

- RealGrouchy 14:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Saint vs. St. in place names

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems I recall seeing some discussion of this somewhere, but i can't see to find it now. It strikes me as odd that places that are pretty uniformly referred to just about everywhere as "St. Someplace" have articles under the title "Saint Someplace". older≠wiser 19:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The normal convention in Wikipedia is 'Saint' for titles of articles about saints (eg Saint Neot), 'St' or 'St.' for articles about places (eg St Neot and St Neots). In the UK it's common to leave the dot out these days, though some prefer to put it in. The dot would always have been used earlier this century. And of course practice will differ from country to country, there are also many other abbreviations for saint in other languages.
So the convention is reasonably clear, especially for articles on saints (people). - Chris Jefferies 20:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is this spelled out anywhere? 'cause someone, awhile back changes a whole bunch of U.S. places to use "Saint" instead of "St.". For example, look at most of the places listed on Saint Charles. And for that matter, is there an article about the actual Saint anywhere? older≠wiser 20:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I might add that most of the changed titles were a result of an ugly cut-n-paste move).
I also noticed this in list of colleges and Universities and individual articles about colleges. Given the large number of schools named after Saints (Saint John, Saint Mary's, Saint Michaels, Saint Josephs, Saint Andrews), there does not appear to be a convention either way . There is also difficulty in schools that are based in cities named after saints (Saint Louis University, University of Saint Thomas). I personally think that Saint should always be spelled out at the very least in the title of the article and can be abbreviated in the article. User:Leonsimms 23:08, 28 July 2004 (UTC)

Company/Business names

Here is a list of possible company or business names. Please comment on which naming convention is most appropriate to use for the main article. In each example, the full legal name is #1, a shortened form (no punctuation) is #2, an even shorter version (less likely to change during normal business) is #3. Please voice any other suggestions. -- Netoholic 03:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • B1 BarFoo, LLC
  • B2 BarFoo LLC
  • B3 BarFoo
  • B4 The version that the company refers to itself as
  • B5 The version used most commonly in normal dialogue

Here is an example of one such company. Please give me suggestions on what the main article should be named. -- Netoholic 15:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Marvel Comics currently has the content, but the legal company name here in the US is Marvel Enterprises, Inc. according to their own website. In casual speech, Marvel or Marvel Comics is used frequently.

Google (company) is currently facing this problem. On VP it seemed Google Inc. was favored. It'l probable be moved soon...if I get around to it. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that number 1 should be the main article, with links from the shortened forms. As you mentioned, companies tend to re-brand themselves. Also, if you look at other things like "Canadian federal election, 1867", which is redirected from "1867 Canadian election".
I would suggest that the main article be the current name of the company, and previous names redirect to it. RealGrouchy 14:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Choice #3. This is essentially a most-common-name issue, and we already have a policy on Wikipedia of using most-common-name, which is the name with the "Inc." or other such accessory suffix. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 11:59, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Album titles

The current text of this article section does not reflect real-world usage. It is certainly a well-established practice to follow general English title capitalization rules in the music industry, but it's largely ignored, and has been for quite some time, by music publishers, artists, and indexers (e.g., libraries). The library case is relatively simple — they just lowercase everything except the first letter and proper nouns (e.g., "A long way down from Stephanie"). One might ignore that special situation. But pick up any 100 CDs, and you'll be hard-pressed to find more than a handful that actually follow English capitalization rules. The vast majority of modern popular music albums (in the most generic sense) follow one of three practices:

  1. Uppercase everything.
  2. Lowercase everything (including initial letters and proper nouns).
  3. Capitalize everything.

The remaining albums and/or songs (perhaps 10%-15%) are quite inconsistent in what they do and don't capitalize. My favorite example is The Beatles' "Yellow Submarine", whose songs include "All together Now", "It's all too much", and "March of The Meanies" — three different examples, none of which completely follow "standard" capitalization rules. (I go into more detail about this at Talk:List of songs whose title includes personal names#Capitalization). And I haven't even covered classical music, which tends to favor a unique combination of "standard" English rules and all-lowercasing for some terms.

I would like to propose following one consistent practice that (A) is in much more common use than the "standard" rules, (B) is easy to understand and follow, and (C) doesn't detract from the text in which it is included. To this end, I suggest we promote #3 above — capitalize everything in a title — as the only practical combination of these factors. I invite questions and comments. -- Jeff Q 23:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alive: plane crash

Discussion moved to Talk:Andes flight disaster

Naming convention for maiden and married women

What is Wikipedia convention for redirecting pages for the following scenarios :

  1. Unmarried girl gets married and changes to her married name. The media begins referring to her by her new name.
  2. Unmarried girl gets married and changes to her married name. The media continues referring to her maiden name because thats too popular to be changed.

I couldn't find any pointers in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Jay 09:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The more redirects the better. --Jiang 10:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Both cases call for a redirect. The actual article should probably be at the most popular moniker. -- ke4roh 11:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Both names should be redirected to each other......just for fun Slizor 12:06, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
Standard Wikipedia naming convention rules should be followed. The article should be at the most common name in general use. All other variants should redirect to it. So we should, in contentious cases, look through real world usage to see what's actually done. The introductory paragraph should give both name versions (bolded). —Morven 12:22, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
How do we find the most common usage ? Google test ? Jay 13:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the "most common" rule is entirely inappropriate here. We don't have to comb the universe for evidence of what to call people when they have just told us. Articles should be titled with the persons name. Hyacinth 21:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Entirely inappropriate? We have ALWAYS had that convention for peoples' names too. After all, the article is at Tony Blair instead of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton. Someone's official birth-certificate name is NOT what we use to decide where to place an article. Therefore, it should be the same with post-birth name changes also (marriage being only one of those cases): we use what's commonly used to refer to that person. In the vast majority of cases this will be what the person chooses to call themselves; what they will introduce themselves as. (which is often not the birth-certificate or marriage-certificate name).
The naming of biographical articles in Wikipedia is complicated by the fact that one individual may be known under several different names at the same time, and may change their name a number of times in their life. For example, we have an article at Cat Stevens (his stage name) even though he was born as Stephen Demetre Georgiou and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. To be neutral, our only choice is to examine popular usage.
In the case of marriage, if a woman chooses to change her name at that time, both names are equally 'correct'. She had one name she chose to go by before marriage and one after. Neither may be exactly equivalent to the legally documented name. And it may be indeed that neither name is actually the most commonly used, if a stage name or nickname is employed.
To emphasise: establishing a convention that the subject of an article gets to choose their own Wikipedia article naming is irredeemably POV and anti the spirit of Wikipedia. This is not to say that their opinion is not valid or relevant, but it is not binding. —Morven 23:20, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Alphabetizing conventions for names with "von"

I don't know if this issue has been addressed before, but what is the consensus on alphabetizing names which begin with "von"? Should a name like Baron von Munchausen be listed under "V" or "M"? I've seen examples of both ways. And I assume the same convention would cover similar names beginning with van, du, della, da, de, etc. MK 05:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Style manuals take pages and pages to cover this, and there's been no real "issues" about it here so far that would lead to concensus. But for what it's worth, the Chicago Style Manual points out that considerations of the individual's personal preference (if known), traditional usage and national usage all enter into consideration, and cross referencing is advisable. In general, names with particles are alphabetized according to the name without the particle:

Basically, Merriam-Webster's Biographical Dictionary is a good guide.

Compound names are usually alphabetized according to the first element

There are special rules for foreign names: name with Abu, Abd, ibn, Mc, or Fitz are alphabetized as written Arabic name prefixed by al- or el- are alphabetized under the following name

-Nunh-huh 05:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For French names containing "de," do not take the "de" into account EXCEPT when the surname alone is one syllable long (e.g. "de Gaulle, Charles). For names containing "von," "van," etc., collate without taking the word into account EXCEPT when the word is capitalised by family usage (e.g. Von Braun, Werhner). -- Emsworth 13:36, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Duplication & Titles

First, apologies if this is dealt with elsewhere - I have looked ...

I was lookingup genie - to find out whether 'genie jokes' got a mention, and found a story of a feral child, plus a link to jinni. This page was what I sought, indeed it admitted that genie is the English word.

I feel that jinni should be genie - that's what 99.99% of English-language users would seek - I further feel it is more entitled to that title than the feral child. So two questions:

  1. Assuming for a moment that I'm right, what should I do?
  2. Where would this advice be found? Not here?
  3. Where should I best raise this to see what others think?

Thanks! Heenan73 11:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the short case-study 'Genie' from the page of that name, allowing that page to take the text from Jinni. Not only was in intuitively appropriate, but some 30 internal links to Genie virtually all refer to genies, not Feral children. Heenan73 18:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Political parties

Convention: There doesn't seem to be a convention for party names, so choose either the English translation or the original version. If you choose one of the options, please make a redirect version from the other option to the chosen option.

Since there is no convention, I've moved this from Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It doesn't make sense to add it when this convention is not agreed. Angela. 21:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the most common English translation was preferred or policy (not that I necessarily agree). Hyacinth 23:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's right, but that applies to everything, not political parties specifically, so it doesn't need to be a separate section here if that is already covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Angela. 11:02, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree, since there is regularly a discussion on it. I notices a more or less consensus (seeing the debate on diverse talk pages on parties) that Wikipedia should list party names (names of organizations) in English, but with the exception that if names of parties are usually in English known with their native name, the native name is used. Exceptions are e.g. the Quebec, Indian or Israeli parties. That is what I want to add as convention. --Gangulf 07:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diacritics in names from other languages

Since the use of diacritical marks (where technically possible) seems to be common for article titles, but the policy is not clearly stated, a proposed policy is being discussed at Talk:Agustin Stahl. --Michael Snow 23:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Television series and shows

The main page was temporarily protected due to this dispute. For the main discussion of the reasons, please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television).

Netoholic. People are still voting. The issue is not resolved. Please stop reverting. Mintguy (T) 19:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • You missed a long discussion, and a vote. Concensus was reached, and now you choose to fight a revert war rather than discuss. You have now exceeded the three revert rule and have shown extremely poor behavior, even after I added a note about your dispute into the section. Here are the diffs as proof: (moved down to my next comment) -- Netoholic 20:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The first is not a revert (and the last is not my edit). The first was establishing the section correctly, in that the issue is not resolved (which it isn't!). It just so happened that the wording that you yourself before you changed it to state (incorrectly) that a consensus had been reached, were adequate for the purpose so I used those words. This is not a revert. I have now reverted the page three times as have you. Mintguy (T) 22:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Here is my last edit where I changed the message to indicate the convention was established and no longer "in progress" [1]. You reverted to that "in progress" message four times, [2] [3] [4] [5]. -- Netoholic 23:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • As I said the first instance isn't a revert. It's a correction. If I was reverting I would have been reverting to something someone else had contributed, or to the last edit, but I changed it to read that the issue was not resolved (which it isn't) and used your own words. Mintguy (T) 00:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • That's an interesting spin, but your history shows that you're an agressive revert-er. It's very unbecoming for an admin. I really won't argue much more, since your history also shows you like long arguements, and I hope someone else will chime in agreeing with my assessment in this case. -- Netoholic 01:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Agressive reverter, for sure, someone has to be with people like User:Kenneth Alan around. you might want to look more closely at those reverts. But I don't break the three revert rule. Mintguy (T) 01:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"I don't break the three revert rule. Mintguy" - I was really hoping you'd say that. Now, while I don't know the full story of your issues with User:Kenneth Alan, the fact remains you violated the Three Revert Rule on those occasions also.

There are similar violations of WP:3RR on George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, and maybe further in your history. And where you don't always break the rule, you do push it extremely frequently. I may recommend that this go to WP:RFC, since I don't believe you act as a proper editor, and may not still deserve to be a sysop. -- Netoholic 02:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm staggered. Have you actually looked at those edits I reverted in those cases? User:Kenneth Alan is a well-known troll who has been causing problems for months. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kenneth_Alan. After Kenneth Alan continued to add nonsense and continued to revert I was forced to block his account for 24 hours and I then brought the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. This is THE exception to the rule. You may note BTW that Kenneth alan also exceeded the 3 revert rule. Do you expect me to leave an article with abject nonsense in it? Mintguy (T) 02:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the way you've turned this into a personal matter. Mintguy (T) 03:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • You are an admin, so you need to be the one upholding policy and acting with more civility than others. I do not consider this a personal matter, but I do dispute your attitude and actions - in the namiong convention case, and on your past. -- Netoholic 03:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • My actions in this case are to correct the inaccurate statement that the policy regarding the naming of television programmes has been approved by a majority of users interested in those matters; for clearly this is not the case. My actions in previous cases are neither here nor there, they have no bearing on this issue. I suggest that you don't try to query my judgement about matters in which you do not have knowledge of the full circumstances. My attitude in this case has become strained due to your persistence in insisting that a matter that is still under consideration, or perhaps has been closed and is now once more up for consideration, is a cut and dried policy. Clearly a number of users have expressed disquiet about the naming convention that you unilateraly authored and applied. I can only question an attitude where an individual takes absolutely no notice of the opinion of half a dozen users who question his decisions, and indeed quotes back to those users a Wikipedia policy that was self-authored merely hours before as if it was enshrined in stone. Mintguy (T) 03:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I tried to move this discussion to User talk:Mintguy, but he reverted it. Since I doubt he'll honor anything I do, if someone else could confirm that his talk page is the appropriate place for this, please respond. Thanks. -- Netoholic 14:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be. Stop trying to make this a personal battle between you and Mintguy (who has clearly demonstrated that he didn't break the 3 revert rule yesterday), and discuss what's actually at issue here - whether your policy has consensus support. (By all means report him on RFC if you want, but you'll no doubt be told that you're being ridiculous.) Proteus (Talk) 15:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Countries

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places). -- Beland 02:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of naming conventions...

Should Naming conventions link directly to Wikipedia:Naming conventions? I think the idea of naming conventions might make a good article in and of itself, (although admittedly, I'm not ready to write such an article myself). AdmN 17:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Until there is an article about naming conventions, I think it's ok to keep the redirect. The links to "naming conventions" should be changed to link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions instead if an article is put there though. Angela. 00:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Public limited companies

There seems to be no convention on naming PLCs. Some keep plc or PLC (e.g. Tesco PLC, BAA PLC) and some don't (BAE SYSTEMS, Cable & Wireless, Safeway, Reuters). Personally I think they are not necessary. ed g2s • talk 22:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that they're not necessary. Somebody recently moved the page to AstraZeneca plc, which I disagree with. Mackerm 22:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I, too, agree.
James F. (talk) 22:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But if you look at the article Public limited company, every entry on the list has the extension applied to it. The question comes down to: if you are writing an article about a company: do you use its formal name, as used on the London Stock Exchange company page (OK - that uses upper case ;-) ) or do you use the brand name of the company? As I stated in my justification on the talk page, the legal notice on the company website says "References to "AstraZeneca", "Group", "we", "us" and "our" are references to AstraZeneca PLC and its affiliates."
Anyone searching for an article on a company wouldn't bother with the corporation status of the company, so that is one good reason for not using 'plc' (unless there was a possibility that disambiguation was needed). That has to be weighed against using the formal term.
The start of my interest in that particular company was that there were four synonyms for that article, with the main article lying under a clearly incorrect version (having a space in it, thus Astra Zeneca). When I cleaned it up, I checked on the company site for the formal name of the company, and checked on Public limited company for naming convention (the first three companies listed use 'plc' in the article name: some of the later ones are redirects) before making the move. I then went and elided all the redirects shown on the 'What links here'. What other action could I take?
If there is a policy on using trade name over formal name of a corporation, then all well and good, and I will abide by that. Will there then be a general effort to tidy up all the other entries that follow suit? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 01:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any convention specific to corporations, but the general naming convention is to use the most commonly used name. This took me a while to get used to, having a tendency to prefer "official names", but in practice I think it works pretty well in that the name people tend to link to ends up being the actual article title rather than a redirect. older≠wiser 01:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The contention of using the plc extension in article names as an information carrier, rather than as a form of disambiguation, seems to produce a number of unresolved secondary issues. Would the abreviation "plc" relate exclusively to public limited companies under British law, or could it be used for any company that meet similar criteria regardless of jurisdiction? If it should apply only to entities under United Kingdom jurisdiction does that imply that entities existing under other jurisdictictions need separate articles, like Astra Zeneca AB? If it on the other hand could be used for companies which are not British, like Sampo plc, does that mean that all examples of other (local) abreviations ought to be changed to plc in order to conform to convention? Etc.
Mic, as far as I know, plc is just British usage, but it may well be a more general form, and the article may need to be expanded to take account of that. (I have expanded the article to mention the other types of companies, and the fact that they must be registered at Companies House - a new article I've just created.) [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 21:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion using abreviations like plc and similar for the purpose of carrying information introduces a set of problems that are, as unnecessary as they are, easily avoided by employing the principle of using the most commonly used name. -- Mic 18:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the important policy here is the "most commonly used name" policy. Although the list of Public limited company lists +" plc" - many of them redirect to common name pages. Unless someone objects to the implementation of the "monst common name" policy - I will take up the task of cleaning up this list. ed g2s • talk 17:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Back to the margin.) In general, the 'common name' policy seems to be favoured by the few who have participated in the debate. I have one more argument that I would like people to respond to before I conceed. The 'common name' tends to be a trademark, and this is something that changes over time, whereas the company name stays static. For instance, the UK bank that is now called Abbey (bank) is still registered as Abbey National plc. On the other hand, Barclays Bank isn't Barclays Bank any more ... it is just Barclays, and is registered as Barclays plc. In the more general sense, if a company uses a number of trademarks, do you pick the most famous one to put the company details under? It strikes me that this could turn into a fairly major project, with a useful item being an infobox giving logo; Trademarks; company registration name; FTSE shortform; head office location; subsidiary companies; and maybe other stuff as well. Should that sort of stuff be talked about before embarking on some sort of standardization exercise? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 21:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I feel that the company article should be under their legal name: and that any colloquial names should point back to the legal name. And, as per Noisy, above, strongly feel that we should reach consensus before arbitrary moves are made. --Tagishsimon
I fear it is too late, and ed has gone all Netoholic on us and proceeded with some moves while the discussion is still on-going. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 22:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I apologise if you think I have jumped the gun here, but several users agreed that including Plc or plc or PLC is only going to be problematic, and there is no reason why the common name policy shouldn't apply here. I am hardly making up new standards - merely applying existing ones. ed g2s • talk 23:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. in the unlikely event that we do decide to standardise on some plc ending for these companies - at least I've cleaned up the list on Public limited company - so it won't be much of a task. ed g2s • talk 23:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Apology accepted; but I too feel you have jumped the gun, and are making assumptions that do not hold up. Noisy's main paragraph, above, with the Barclays and Abbey examples starts to blow away this concept of common names. Is it Boots, or Boots the Chemists? National Westminster, or NatWest? Lloyds, Lloyds TSB, BOC or British Oxygen ... and on it goes. I suggest we organise a vote on the Talk:Public limited company - I'm happy to set that in motion over the next few minutes. And, for the record, a convention which I think is far better established than the naming precedent on which Ed is depending, is that you consult before making wholesale changes of the sort now underway. --Tagishsimon

Discussion moved to Talk:Public limited company. Go to it, people.

There is no discussion there. Just a polarising vote. This does not help.
IMO: the long-standing, overriding Wikipedia naming convention is Use common names. It is not common practise to refer to a company with 'PLC', 'Ltd', 'Corporation' or the like on the end. The other problem is that which letters are after a company's name varies over time. As I recall, PLC only dates from the 1980s; most of the companies we're talking about are older than that. Even after that date, some companies have changed from 'Ltd' to 'PLC' status, I believe. Wikipedia articles are about the historical company as well as the modern one.
I think we should be picking as commonly used a name we can for any article on a company given the need to disambiguate. Of course, redirects should exist from any other name a company may be referred to as. —Morven 21:07, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, another voice of reason. The vote suggests that I'm in favour of removing plc from all article names which I am not. I am merely in favour of respecting the naming convention which has been around since the beginning. Very few companies are most commonly known by their name with plc on the end. Those that are should stay there, those that require it for disambiguation should also stay there. Requiring all PLCs to use their full name would be absolutely ridiculous as it would be it complete defiance of one of Wikipedia's basic conventions. ed g2s • talk 21:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jeez. [Personal attack removed.] --Tagishsimon

Choking the process

It's rather interesting that one of the main themes of this discussion is the ongoing attempts to thwart any possible resolution by rushing blindly ahead into various ad hoc solutions. Whether it is out of ignorance or just a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia dispute resolution might be an open question, but apparently there is a need to review the basics.

To get a grasp of Wikipedia dispute resolution those interested in participating could start with taking a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is perhaps necessary to understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that is why building a consensus is always the preferred choice. The first entry in this discussion is less than two days old and possibilities of reaching a consensus on this are only scratched upon, and far from exhausted. However, after that the next step would be to invite third parties to the discussion to help to further it towards a consensus. This should be allowed to the necessary time, without anyone trying to derail the process by forcibly implementing their own pet agendas.

Only if all this should fail a survey would become necessary, and in such a case the procedures in Wikipedia:Survey guidelines should be followed. Among the basic provisions there has to be a consensus on the nature of the survey, like what questions to be asked and when the deadline should be, before any voting even can take place. It is recommended that the process of reaching a consensus about the nature of the survey as such, be allowed to take about a week to determine. When a survey is called it is also to be announced so that it will be possible to participate, etc.

Because the voting called upon above, at Talk:Public limited company, satisfies none of the basic requirements for Wikipedia dispute resolution, any result produced by would be moot and has no hope of acquiring necessary validity. That unfortunate process should be called off, preferably by the one who initiated it and discussion be brought back here as soon as possible. It is important that the fundamental rules of the resolution process actually is respected and cared for by all involved parties. -- Mic 20:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. The proposal is also gratuitously UK-centric, most notably regarding multinationals.

Susvolans 14:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Phyrricism

Oddly, the debate - albeit a structured debate involving a poll, was going quite well until Mic posted the above. After which the debate was choked dead. So, my question: who killed the debate? Me or Mic? As for Susvolans and his "gratuitously UK-centric" comment. The debate was over the naming of PLCs, which are Public Limited Companies, which are things listed on the London Stock Exchange. A little knowledge, as they say, is a dangerous thing.

What is the result of Mic's intervention? 1) the end of debate 2) it leaves all of the PLC articles renamed, against the wishes of at least half of the people who involved themselves in the debate before it was summarily curtailed by Mic. A good result? YMMV. --Tagishsimon  

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_4&oldid=1248816014"