This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Discrepancy between WP:DIACRITICS and current practice
NAC:No consensus. Both of the proposals to change the guidelines on diacritics and other extended characters are tie votes, and there is no compelling evidence that the closer should cast a supervote based on strength of arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it time to do something about the wide discrepancy between the indifference proclaimed by the guideline ("...neither encouraged nor discouraged") and the current practice? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Would this be more in line with current practice? -
(replace the first sentence of the diacritics section by:)
The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is encouraged where available and appropriate:
example of a diacritic (triple dot) currently not technically available for article titles
That might be better. Talk:Concerto funèbre#Requested move however may be a problematic example since it was just ane editor fixing his/her own mistake between Italian and French. See talk at WT:AT for alternative examples. But yes this text above would fix the discrepancy. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept the example (the uncontroversial move back to where it was before is completed now), but changed the wording in order to draw attention to the importance of checking sources).
For me this is ready to be copied to the guideline page now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There isn't a discrepancy between the guideline and current practice, it's just that the guideline is applied inconsistently. There might be a case for talking in terms of getting rid of the guideline, since it might be argued that consensus for it has expired. But I don't see there is a case for a new guideline actively telling editors to abandon the normal English language usage they see in other reference works. Formerip (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
User:FormerIP what do you mean? Can you perhaps give an article as example of the current guideline being applied inconsistently? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Reykjavík/Istanbul, for example. There's nothing I can see that distinguishes the two cases except that consensus has been in line with the guideline in one case and not in the other. Formerip (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
FormerIP, Istanbul is listed among the sources at English exonyms as an exception where the exonym and the local name are distinguished by a diacritic mark, however that is unusual.
Francis, yes, we could go with your draft text. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Implemented. For the time being kept "underdiscussion" tag to this talk page section.
FWIW: Istanbul, see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Spelling. To be realistic, that's probably the reason why it might take some time before for this particular page the ".. is encouraged..." recommendation will be followed (if ever), unless someone takes "more lameness" as a goal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Continued (trying to extract conclusions from the Rhône discussion)
Indeed, unfortunately Istanbul is complicated by myriad historical issues which have less effect on the remaining 000s of Turkish geo/bio titles. It is easier to judge on a simpler case such as Talk:Rhône that, as the UN geo names committee found, omission of an accent doesn't create an exonym. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The move to which you linked at Talk:Rhône is a classic example of why this guideline should not be altered. In the most recent requested move the no examination of the usage in English language sources or the information that the name is derived from Latin into both languages was discussed. Instead people expressed opinions such as yours "Restore correct name" with no evidence presented to show what the correct name is, and support with comments such as "to keep the proper French spelling and for consistency reasons". Not one person who participated in that move presented a source based reason for changing the name. The current wording of this naming convention encourages such research, and to try to move away from that is detrimental to Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
All I see there is that 6 editors unanimously disagreed with you and reverted your removal of accent from a French river. The editing community does not want or need "research" which consists of copying sources which do not have the capability to carry French accents. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that Rhône is the "correct name"? -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
You'd need to ask the 6 editors who reverted your move how they know Rhône is name that the river Rhône should be under. The question is rather how you arrived at the conclusion that "Rhone" was the correct title. But if you want to reopen it I suggest you ping all 6 editors who reverted your move at Talk:Rhône, not here. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
To answer you question I explained why I moved the page back in 2008 see Talk:Rhône#Unqualified use. As to what name I would support now would involve a another survey of usage in reliable English language sources to see what is the current common name. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not wish to ask the others, I asked you! You put the page up for an RM with the statement "Rhone → Rhône. Restore correct name from move mentioned on Talk page but no RM, per WP:FRMOS, and as used consistently in all quality English sources".
Why mention WP:FRMOS which is not a naming convention or part of the AT policy?
Why use the French Google search engine and not an English language one?
You restricted your research to January 2010 (why not for the last 1/4 century)?
Despipte these restrictions the number of books returned for "Rhone" far outnumbers those that use "Rhône". The very first one returned is an academic book called L'étalement Urbain en Suisse--impossible À Freiner? which in its French sections uses French accents, but in its English language section states "The valley floors of the four major Alpine rivers, the Rhine, Rhone, Reuss and Ticino, serve in their respective cantons a function similar to that of the Central Lowlands in Switzerland". You must have see that, so how do you justify your statement "used consistently in all quality English sources"? NB you state ALL not MOST -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"I do not wish to ask the others, I asked you!" ... WP:BAITING. PBS, if you want to discuss further please go to the page, ping the 6 editors who reverted your (in my view) disruptive removal of the accent, and open a discussion there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I see! You can ask me questions "The question is rather how you arrived at the conclusion...", (which I have answered), but when I ask you a question I am baiting you. Isn't that rather hypocritical of you? I am not trying to bait you, I am trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that "Rhône ... [is] used consistently in all quality English sources", because the evidence you present does not support your assertion. This seems to me pertinent to this debate as you seem to be wanting to alter this guideline to encourage the use of accent marks in an article title and ignore the frequency of use in English language sources. I my opinion that is as damaging to Wikipedia as those who wish to remove accent marks from words in article titles whether or not most reliable English language sources use them. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow:
(Rhône discussion:) "Not one person who participated in that move presented a source based reason for changing the name. The current wording of this naming convention encourages such research,..." (PBS)
(same Rhône discussion:) "...there is that 6 editors unanimously disagreed with you and reverted your removal of accent from a French river. The editing community does not want or need "research" which consists of copying sources which do not have the capability to carry French accents" (In ictu oculi)
(guideline update proposal would add to the current wording:) always thoroughly check sources before changing diacritics ... which I see as more encouragment to engage in source-checking than the current wording of the guideline... per the above the current encouragement is certainly not all that strong, because generally disregarded (at least one point PBS and In ictu oculi are in agreement about).
Rational discussion is good, but focus please... --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The use of modified letters in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged
I reverted a change in the current wording:
The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged;
The current wording follows policy of using reliable sources to determine article titles. Arguing that "diacritics in article titles is encouraged" is contrary to the AT policy. If such a change is to be made here it should not be made until there has been an RfC and consensus reached that such a change ought to be made -- PBS (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@PBS: - What if it were changed to "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is encouraged where reliable English sources dictate their inclusion. If found in reliable English sources they should be used where available and appropriate." Then you could have the two bullet points (minus the silly 'see what might happen if you don't' addition). Would that be closer to common practice these days? We had someone at Tennis Project try to dictate no-diacritics regardless of sourcing and that completely failed. The wording that was attempted here went the other extreme direction. Perhaps some common ground can be found? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The current wording is ambiguous, a misunderstanding of the difference between (1) WP:IRS reliability and (2) font/MOS issues, disruptive and conflict-seeding, as well as at odds with article body and article title reality. When 100% of straightforward article titles are using full fonts this text is simply a clarification. Francis' text is completely uncontroversial. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Support the change as proposed by User:In ictu oculi. Elimination of phrases such as "neither encouraged nor discouraged" which at best attempt to say something but in fact say nothing, and at worse lend themselves to use by both sides in an WP:EW, will certainly lead to less edit warring as well. Mercy11 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Support the change as proposed by User:In ictu oculi. It appears that reading talkpages is no longer done before reverting discussed changes these days. Agathoclea (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose change — The fact that a small minority of WP editors wish English included more diacritics is irrelevant. Those that wish to espouse their own ideas and opinions are welcome to visit the blog-o-sphere; however, the foundation of Wikipedia, the Five Pillars, is all about the fact that Wikipedia cites external sources and relies on reliable sources to determine what is, and is not, correct. If you know that a fact is wrong in Wikipedia, but is sourced to a citation of a reliable source, you don't go to Wikipedia and complain about how the information is wrong and should be fixed, you go to the original source (or another reliable source) and attempt to get the correct information published, then you rely on that published correction as the basis for an update to Wikipedia. The fact that some Wikipedians believe that a word should be spelled this was or that way, with this squiggle here or that flourish there, is irrelevant; what a Wikipedian personally believes is meaningless in terms of what Wikipedia publishes; what a Wikipedian can cite from the preponderance of reliable external (in the case of WP:en, English) sources is all that matters. Those that want five dots over the Q or a big horizontal line through the O can go lobby the publishers to change what they print; they can go to the ISO and lobby to have their creative new artistic design incorporated into the ISO character set; they can do just about whatever they like to get changes made in the real world, what they can't do is whine and nag and complain on Wikipedia discussion boards until people get so fed up reading their tripe that they leave Wikipedia rather that put up with the bs of a few. The opinion of 3 or 30, on this little conversation in a dark corner of WP, is irrelevant. A complete change in the policies of Wikipedia, particularly to one which has been the subject of literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of editor comments in other threads, is not permitted under WP rules. If we're going to have another 50pg no consensus argument about this policy, it requires a full RfC with listing in all the main pages. — Who R you?Talk 20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - 'Who R you' makes sense here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
support the change suggested by IIO. Who R you, I don't think anyone is suggesting not following reliable sources. Rather, we are suggesting that some sources are more reliable than others when it comes to reproducing diacritics. If a book is published in black and white it's a terrible source to determine the color of a Picasso painting. The same is true here - if a low-MOS website doesn't have the editorial resources to spell vietnamese names correctly, but specialist sources do, we should trust the specialist sources, since accuracy is important in a serious encyclopedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Cambridge History of Southeast Asia is one of the most highly regarded specialist works on Vietnam, not a "low-MOS website" without editorial resources. Good style is based on dictionaries, atlases and other widely available reference works. How specialists do it is beside the point. SuperLicker (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Comment by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That black and white book analogy is terrible for diacritics. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others but assumptions are being made that because diacritics aren't used in some publications they either can't produce them or are too lazy to produce them. That would need to be proved for each publication. If you see even one use of diacritics in a publication then you can rule out that they can't produce them. It's simply choice just as some publications choose to use them. The new addition throws out that choice. But WhoRyou is correct that this needs a larger forum. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - if you see one use, you can rule out that they can't use them. However, each book is typset and decisions about cost and editorial control are made at that point. In some cases, especially older sources, typesetting proper diacritics was impractical. That doesn't mean we should avoid spelling things correctly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you believe that anybody that doesn't spell things the way you want them spelled must not have enough resources to spell them the way you want them demonstrates your bias. Unicode has been around for almost 30 years and ubiquitous for almost 20, so this strawman argument that English publishers are somehow technologically prevented from spelling things the way you want them spelled can be dismissed without comment. And the (English) RS, not you, dictate what is the correct spelling in English. The fact that some foreign language chooses to spell a name or word some other way is irrelevant; foreign languages are not English and this is the English Wikipedia. Those that wish to are welcome to become editors on the WP:vi. You'll note that you're immediately aware that you are no longer visiting the English Wikipedia by the meaningless squiggles and Unicode gibberish you see on your screen. — Who R you?Talk 06:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppøse. It's absurd that we tolerate breaches of what is a sensible policy with article titles like Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Þórður Guðjónsson. It would be beyond absurd to actually endorse them. Formerip (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Best turn your eyes away from Category:Turkish_economists then. The icelandic names I'm a bit less sure about, as those are using new letters - not just diacritical marks, so I could be convinced, but then again, why is it so bad to have an accurate title? This is not just "tolerating breaches", this is lived consensus across tens of thousands of biographies, of which only a vanishingly small number are not using the proper diacritics, and this consensus has been confirmed through hundreds of page moves and RM discussions over many years. if anything, it is this policy which no longer has consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Þórður Guðjónsson are not "accurate", they are just Turkish and Icelandic, respectively. They are really inaccurate, from the point of view that English characters which English speakers generally need in order to decode what they are looking at are missing. There are a depressing number of articles that follow this pattern, I will grant, but the exceptions are not vanishingly small. They tend to relate to articles on better known subjects where Wikipedia has been able to rouse itself from apathy and resist. So, I don't see a consensus for blanket diacritics, I just see an insurgency against the English language which hasn't yet been dealt with.
You will be hard pressed to find Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Þórður Guðjónsson mentioned in reputable, generalist English language publications. Why should Wikipedia be any different? We are not supposed to be the avant garde of spelling reform. Formerip (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
FormerIP, language like "insurgency" isn't appropriate to use of your fellow article contributors and editors. And when you contradict Obiwankenobi and say "the exceptions are not vanishingly small" you are, like it or not, factually incorrect. Anyone who has been following this will probably know that there is only 1 straightforward BLP "foreigner" who has been moved to and then kept at an "English name". That is 1 among 100,000s of bio and geo articles. As for Turkish, use of Turkish fonts has increased rapidly in printed English books concerning Turkey in the last 10 years. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a campaign of editing contrary to policy, even when the policy has been put the community and upheld, as it will be again on this occasion. "Insurgency" is a perfectly appropriate term, IMO. Formerip (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
FormerIP, as at WP:HOCKEY and WP:TENNISNAMES, WP:TENNISNAMES2? There's also WP:AT "Søren Kierkegaard," WP:UE "German for German politicians", WP:EN "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" WP:MOSPN "Paul Erdős", WP:NCP "Antoni Gaudí,". Please consider the possibility that rather than an "insurgency" it could instead be that your reading of policy differs from the reading of other editors. In ictu oculi (talk)
It could be, but I think we are talking about the reading of only a small minority of editors who are deeply reformist on this question. I've started an RfC below, to test this is the case of eth and thor. If the RfC supports their continued use (and gets a decent response in terms of numbers) then you are right and I am wrong. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose on the grounds that this is ENGLISH wikipedia and we all know that "foreign sources," which goes against other naming convention since it says what English sources use (and a vast majority do not use diacratics), will be used to POV titles to non English names. Second thing to note here is some POV pushing by a usual suspect who made the change with no discussion what so ever. Disability expert (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You may also not be aware that the issue of html sports sources has been thoroughly rehearsed and resolved before in 2 specific projects where in each there was an objection from some editors to "foreign names" for BLP titles. (1) raised and resolved at WP:HOCKEY, and (2) raised by User:Tennis expert, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert/Archive, at WP Tennis in 2011, which eventually was resolved by WP:TENNISNAMES RFC closed 8 June 2012. Aside from these 2 projects no project has proposed, then rejected, having a different standard of MOS for (say) French, Czech sportspeople as opposed to (say) French, Czech scientists and politicians. There is also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English created by User:Who R you?, deleted by the community in Nov 2011. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's right, I created that Project in the hopes of not having to waste thousands of man-hours, of what would otherwise be productive time, dealing with the same conversation, over and over again, every time that 3 or 4, typically foreign language editors, (as is precisely the case here with the 4 editors pushing it this time) get it into their minds that they'd get a kick out of disrupting the rest of the English editors by trying to, once again, every few months or so, get more of English Wikipedia into non-English. Meanwhile, I notice that a quick look at your edit history indicates that you don't actually do anything on WP:en other than start long, useless, unproductive arguments with people on the talk pages all over WP:en; perhaps you just figured this topic was a good opportunity to cause the next disruption. — Who R you?Talk 06:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll ignore that as evidently incorrect, please see the section from WP:NPA below before making further comment about "foreign language editors". In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I particularly dislike the "see what might happen if you don't", which sounds like "be perfect, or prepared to get attacked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. "Encouraged"? Are we supposed to pat an editor on the head who uses more diacritics? SuperLicker (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC) !vote by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. Admittedly, some other English-language media may historically have found it difficult to accurately reproduce diacritics; but we don't have to slavishly follow their compromises and errors. We can have accurate titles. bobrayner (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Widespread use of diacritics does not reflect normal English usage. The Proffesor (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
New proposal: "can be used"
Modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) can be used in article titles when available and appropriate:
example of a diacritic (triple dot) currently not technically available for article titles
Support better version than what is currently used, although not fully representing situation at RMs, but close enaugh. Agathoclea (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. This is more realistic than the previous proposal, but it is not better than the current guidance and just saying "can be used" is not helpful in content disputes, because it just means one side saying "we can" and the other saying "yeah, but we don't have to". We may as well have no guidance at all.
On a procedural point, already made by users above, the current policy has previously been upheld by broad community discussion, so a similar discussion (for example an RfC) would be required to overturn it. Formerip (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose * Francis the advantage of following usage in reliable English language sources is that it avoids the need to analyse the results in terms of bullet points you have proposed, because usage in reliable English language sources will automatically include those points (and many others with due weighting). Ie if a name like that of a notable American called "Arnold Schoenberg" (or "Arnold Schonberg") it will be reflected in the reliable sources. If however there is another notable man from Germany with the name "Arnold Schönberg", then one would look at the reliable English language sources usage for that man and ignore the usage for an American with the name "Arnold Schonberg" ((or "Arnold Schonberg"). It is really a very simple rule "use the sources Luke". If one does that the complications you have bullet pointed disappear. --PBS (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not against reformulating this guideline per se if that is broadly deemed desirable to reflect developments in diacritics usage but it needs to be more clearly defined and balanced than this proposal.--Wolbo (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
support This clearly reflects broad consensus, actually it is weaker than broad consensus. However I would remove the "technical restriction" and 3-umlauts picture entirely. there's no point in telling people they can't do something that they can't do anyways.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
By all means, please provide the link to the discussion where you claim that the majority of English WP editors came to a consensus that editors will make up their own spelling and ignore the English RS. And, of course, the 3-umlaut that you originally argued you wanted to be able to use (if you could), isn't actually a word/language/character however you want to classify it; it's a graphic creation, just like the pentagram or devil's horns or pitchfork or whatever that (particularly metal) rock bands have had graphic artists creating for decades. They weren't a part of any language then and they aren't now, and Wikipedia is not about children having fun creating articles with neat symbols in the titles so that they can feel special. That's part of why we don't leave the decisions for such things up to Wikipedia editors, so many of whom are still children/childish. — Who R you?Talk 06:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
What the heck are you talking about? I was simply pointing out that we don't need to say to editors "Don't attempt to put a character into the title that is impossible to put into the title" - no matter what that character is. I never defended the 3-umlaut, I don't even know what it is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose English Wikipedia's spelling is not up to the first English as a second language editor that gets a chance to sign on to WP:en and create a foreign language article. WP:en has long established, consensus based policies that say that English spelling is determined by the English RS, not based on the whim of some Wikipedia editor, be they sitting in some non-English speaking country somewhere else in the world or even if, on rare occasions, they happen to live in North America. — Who R you?Talk 06:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
I have to say that this pair of comments reminds me of how I first became aware of the behavior of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English and User:Who R you?'s supporters. User:Who R you? for an editor with 1 article creation to speak to the editing community like this is unconscionable. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi I am confused you highlight (by putting in bold) "or against a group of contributors". To which group are you referring? -- PBS (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
You really need to ask User:Who R you? which group he's referring to. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that User:Who R you? male? Were did (s)he mention the word group or imply such a group existed? If there is no explicit mention (see singular they and plural pronouns), then please explain from which phrase or sentences you drew you inference. -- PBS (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)PBS, "Wikipedia editors, so many of whom are still children/childish" and following comment would be read as plural but since the WP:NPA guideline says "against another contributor, or against a group of contributors" that's really nit picking. The intent of WP:NPA is clear. [edit - the comment below also states "group"]. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yet, for all your repeated posting of the same thing in multiple places (do we see a pattern here resembling that of a troll), I said nothing racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, nor any other epithet (such as against people with disabilities); nor did I direct any of those comments, that I didn't make, at any contributor or group of contributors. Perhaps you'd care go find a dictionary and look up words such as national. While you may interpret Vietnamese, English, Chinese, or German to mean nations, or take mention of such things as a slur of nationality, the truth is, particularly in this context, they are languages. There's nothing wrong with editors from foreign lands(a short-form for countries or regions where English is not the primary (official and de facto) language) contributing to en:WP; a problem only arises when a small group of those editors for whom English is not their primary language (that is, English as a second language editors), be they resident in North America, central Africa, southeastern Asia, or anywhere else, attempting to dictate that English should follow the pattern of their foreign language of choice. If I wish to contribute to the French or German, or heaven forbid the Russian or Chinese, Wikipedias, I am welcome to do so, subject to the obvious potential of revision and embargos on vandalism; what I'm not permitted to do is get together with a dozen other English WP editors and go to ru:WP and repeatedly start discussions, ad nauseam, demanding that ru:WP switch all their titles from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet so that English readers and editors will feel like ru:WP more accurately reflects the way things are done in English. Similarly, no one should, be they "sitting in some non-English speaking country somewhere else in the world or even if, on rare occasions, they happen to live in North America", use en:WP as their soapbox platform to wail about the injustices of the world and how, the fact that English publishers willfully opt to forego the use of non-English script, somehow proves that English publishers are incapable of, or too lazy, or too concerned about profits, or too understaffed, to figure out how to use Unicode. As for creating articles, you are correct, I have not spent my time creating hundreds of nonsensical one paragraph articles (such as Trương Quang Được), all of which clearly fail WP:NOTE / WP:BIO, having, according to the article references, never been, nor are they ever likely to be, the subject of any English RS; now, of course, tens of thousands of Wikipedian man-hours will need to be spent having countless RfDs to delete all the unsourced/non-notable nobodies that you've created articles about (as listed on your User page). Perhaps somebody familiar with Huggle, or whichever other useful productivity tool is appropriate, will be kind enough to flag those thousand or so articles for deletion on the basis of notability.WP:GNG — "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, … — Who R you?Talk 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Who R you, you apparently misunderstand the goal of the english-language wikipedia. It is not to "document everything that English-language sources think is important" - that is chauvinistic in the extreme, and one of the reasons we still have systemic bias. Even if something is never touched by any english language sources ever, it is still a perfectly acceptable topic here. If you disagree with that, there's really not much you can do about it, so you'd best get over it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
"Misunderstanding" is not Who R you?'s problem. "Misrepresenting" is. He's merely repeating the same bad faith arguments that failed him in 2011. Meanwhile, the world continues to march past him. Resolute 16:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Support Agreed with Obi-wan. This proposal actually falls below current practice, but remains an improvement. Resolute 16:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Less clear than current policy. The Proffesor (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Recognizability and Naturalness
I think we need some discussion on how the above proposals might (or might not) conflict with the twin goals of Recognizability and Naturalness (the first two goals outlined in our WP:Article titles policy). A name may well be more accurate (or "correct") when diacritics are used, but if only a handful of English language sources use diacritics when presenting that name, I don't see how the version with diacritics would be recognizable or natural to our readers. Or to put it another way... The most recognizable and natural version of a name does not always match the most accurate version. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that providing the phrase "although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." in Recognizability is noted (and followed) then there is no contradiction between "Recognizability" and "Naturalness". The problem is that with spelling, while both "color" and "colour" are recognisable, for many, probably thanks to years of conditioning in school, one or the other is not natural (aesthetically pleasing). It is understandable that for an editor familiar with one form of spelling, either with accent marks or without, that one looks more "natural" (aesthetically pleasing) than the other. As with national differences in spelling this is not something for which someone can easily change their opinion when asked which looks better. This means that two different editors can easily hold different opinions on which looks "correct". In the case of national differences of spelling Wikiepdia has a set of rules to reduce conflict over what is "correct". When it comes to the spelling of foreign subjects while editors may not be able to agree on which looks "correct" (ie aesthetically pleasing) if they act in good faith, they are usually able to agree on the metrics that measure which is most commonly used in reliable English language sources. I can fully understand how a Frenchman reading an article on Napoleon would see "Napoleon" spelt that way that as aesthetically displeasing (because just as an American sees "colour" as a spelling mistake, Napoleon would be a spelling mistake in French (in French his name is spelt "Napoléon"). If such a hypothetical Frenchman takes part in an WP:RM then he ought to put aside is personal preference and decide on the appropriate name by seeing what is commonly used in reliable English language sources. In doing this he is behaving as an "objective Wikipedian" (a concept similar to an objective historian).
Far to many Wikipedians support whichever spelling of a word they think is "correct" ie for their personal preference and ignore the evidence presented in reliable English language sources. This support for editorial personal preference means that some titles are probably not following spelling usage in reliable English language sources and so do not meet the dual requirements of "Recognizability" and "Naturalness" for the English speaking and reading public. With differences in national varieties of spelling, guidelines try to keep this to a minimum by suggesting that articles with close ties with a nation be spelt in that dialect (as that probably reduces the displeasure at inappropriate spelling as much as Wikipedia can for a global English language audience). If editors follow usage in reliable English language sources for the spelling of non English language national subjects then Wikipedia probably minimise the number of readers who find an article title to be aesthetically displeasing. I think that by taking time to research the usage in reliable English language sources far from "dumbing down" Wikipedia is following WP:V, one of the core content policies and is a more accurate encyclopaedia for it. -- PBS (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Contested validity of "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language"
The text of the project page begins: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources..."
However, in the case of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant the clear common name in Western media has become the shortened version of "Islamic State". The namespace Islamic State is occupied by a concept dab but, none-the-less there has been significant resistance to the making of a change. This has been for a variety of reasons not least because of rejection of the new name by Islamic / Arabic authorities and communities.
While it is clear that English Wikipedia should look to English sources for commonname, valid objections by specific communities are also be taken info account.
"generally" is an important modifier in that first sentence of this guideline. Other considerations apply, and not all of them are included in this guideline. There are dozens of naming conventions guidelines, plus a policy page which outdoes them all. WP:AT is that policy page. WP:AT#Non-neutral but common names seems to have some relevance in this case, confirming the general principle, and pointing to some exceptions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Also this is a new name, it may be that in time a page move and rearrangement under primary topic would be appropriate, but as SF has pointed out this is not an issue of guidance by this naming convention, but rather the main policy page. -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Help:Language
Help:Language currently redirects to Help:Naming conventions. I would like to make Help:Language an independent help article that covers other topics as well, including spelling, IPA pronunciation and non-English Wikipedias. Any objections?--agr (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done this.--agr (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Good work. bobrayner (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Contested validity of "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" (2)
The policy says, correctly in my view, "It is not our business to predict...but rather to observe what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers." However, there is a long discussion of numbers of hits on search engines, suggesting that this can normally in some way be a reliable measure of use. Yet readers' exposure to names is not just on the internet, but also through printed books and in spoken daily life, and search engine measures will not pick this up. Unfortunately this is a particular problem with historical articles. Academic research here is very specialised and jargon-ridden, and is only from time to time digested by more literary historians into a form used by the public more widely. It is these latter more common forms which are suitable for an encyclopedia, and many of them antedate the widespread use of the web. There is a need for better control of editors who seem to enjoy showing off their knowledge of foreign languages by an extensive use of foreign names and other words which is inappropriate to the English Wikipedia: areas which are especially problematic include excessive use of German words in German history articles, transliteration instead of translation of administrative terms and other words in Polish and other Slavic (and in Tunisian and other Arabic) articles, and a determination in ancient and mediaeval Greek history to transliterate names in close imitation of the Greek alphabet rather than in the usual English conventions (so that, e.g., "Constantine V" becomes "Konstantinos V", or "Palaeologus" becomes "Palaiologos"). Diomedea Exulans (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This also results from editors who are more accustomed to their native language than to English. With some fields, this also appears to be an effort to score nationalist points. Even the academic literature does not foreignize as avidly as Wikipedia does; I would be perfectly content to follow the usage of Averil Cameron, and use Constantine. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox title in non-Latin characters
Hey,
I have a question regarding the use of non-Latin characters in infobox titles. I looked over this article and other MoS pages but couldn't find the relevant issue.
The issue is as follows: A TV show (in the specific case, a season name) was from a country that uses non-Latin characters (Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, etc.), the article name is in English and this show had a different name each season (not just a number - Season 4). Should the infobox title be in the native language or should it be in English (in this current situation there isn't a native_title field in the infobox)? --Gonnym (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Use of Palmarès as a heading
I have opened a discussion on whether Palmarès (French for list of achievements or list of winners) should be the standard heading used for a cyclists results. Where can I seek opinions on this? Thanks. BaldBoris 20:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
What about official English names for characters in anime? I got this project page from the Dance with Devils <!--> about Loewen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbyAndTheRockets07 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
RfC on USEENGLISH (and CONSISTENCY, dashes, and capital letters) in Russian train station article titles
There seems to be no clear consensus for the change. The main concerns given in opposition are the vagueness of some of the qualifiers (e.g., what denotes "modern"). --slakr\ talk / 17:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Later-added summary: A wording revision has been proposed to the guideline. The table below shows the before and after versions. The question is whether to make this change, or keep the original (or do something else, in theory). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
An edit by SMcCandlish incorporated the following change(s) :--
Original version
Proposed change
If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.
If a particular name is the most widely used in modern English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what names are used by non-English sources.
My red (and italics for those who are colour blind).
I think we need to discuss such a change before implementing it.PBS (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Refactored by Winged Blades of GodricOn leave at 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC) per WP:WRFC
Comment:-- I am going to look at them backwards because what that goes from my least concern to the most major:
"names are" that is a grammatical change predicated on the first change so we can put that to one side.
"modern" the is a bad idea because there is no definition for modern. You may think that a source from the 1911s is modern another person my think anything only sources in the 2000s are modern. This is not something that should be in this section. If it is a problem, then people will bring it up in discussion that takes place during a requested move, and it may well be that modern depends on the subject of the proposed article title rather than an arbitrary date that covers all subjects. Including "modern" in this section is instruction creep with no real advantage and an the foreseen downside of WP:BEANS for those who are on a mission. Besides it is coved better in the policy section WP:UE, so it does not need to be redefined here.
"the most widely". This is the one I have problems with because it changes the meaning of the section. Let us suppose we have a discussion on an article title and an editor finds just three book that use one title and one other with a different name. Then the former meets your new criteria (it is the most widely used). But it does not meet the current criteria of being established English language name for something, which we decide by surveying usage in reliable English language sources to judge if it is widely used.
Support new (right-hand side) version, as the editor who wrote it. To address PBS's numbered points above, in the same reverse order:
It's a grammatical change that has nothing to do with anything else. It's basic logic: there can be more than one alternative name in other languages. I'm not sure why "name is" is struck in the copy of the original on the left above; I have objection to "no matter what is used by non-English sources", since it also gets rid of the singular "name" which is incorrect in this context.
Modern is our actual standard, and the purpose of WP guidelines is to record our best practices not try to defy them or make up new ones. This comes up in RMs very, very frequently. If we think we need a definition, then we could theoretically insert one, though this would be rather artificial. In actual practice, we're generally talking about sources from 2000 onward, though this can vary by case (some usages have not changed for longer, others have changed more recently). The default Google News search seems to go back to around 2010, and can be made to go back as far as 2006. Google Ngrams only goes up to 2008.
It makes the meaning of the section agree with the main text of this page, and corrects an obvious logic and interpretation problem. If there are multiple common names in English (e.g. many human-used plant species have a dozen or more regional, vernacular names in English), we should be using the most common one (or something else, like the binomial, if it is actually more common in English RS than any of these vernacular names), per WP:COMMONNAME policy. This guideline cannot magically create an exception to that policy.
— SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC); clarified with a small parenthetical, 15:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish I am not sure why you turned a discussion into a RfC I certainly did not intend it to be one. I thought we could discuss it and see if there is a common agreement. Only then, it there is no agreement, do I think it appropriate to hold an RfC. To address you points:
It is struck out because you changed the wording. We agree it is a grammatical change as I said initially "predicated on the first change so we can put that to one side."
I stand by what I said before it is in the Policy so it does not need to be addressed here.
"and corrects an obvious logic and interpretation problem". This is a section in "Naming conventions (use English)", and this section has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME, but is to clarity that we use a foreign name if there is no established English language name. Please read my example that start ""the most widely". ... Let us suppose..." and explain why you think your wording is better for this specific section, as this is the nub of the problem -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@user:SMcCandlish Can we please discuss (3). I would really like you to explain why you think this section is about WP:UCRN and do not think that this section is about "no established English language name" [so use the common foreign name instead]. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say it was not about "no established English-language name". It just also cannot be an anti-WP:UCRN provision, a guideline trying to trump a policy (even inadvertently, through poor wording). I'm completely mystified by your resistance to the tweak I made. I cannot see a clear rationale against it, and what you've provided as a rationale I've already responded to. So, this is turning circular and I'd rather let other editors provide their input. PS: I've re-read your original point #3 above, about half a dozen times, and still do not see what you're getting at. The proviso at the end is about the majority of sources. In one-editor research seems to show what the majority are doing. But it's so few sources we wouldn't use it for COMMONNAME purposes or USEENGLISH ones, anyway. We'd need more sources for either determination. PS: Why RfC? Because changes anyone things are substantive do not appear to "stick" in WP:P&G pages these days unless there's an RfC behind them. It's unfortunate that WP has turned this bureaucratic in the last few years, but likely an organizational life-cycle matter. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC); extended 15:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Technical matter about RfC formatting resolved.
Comment Please arrange for the RfC format to be fixed. It goes against WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief in at least two ways: first, the opening statement (the portion between the {{rfc}} template and the first timestamp) includes a table - this is forbidden as it breaks the listing entry (have a look at how the RfC appears at WP:RFC/STYLE, Permalink); second, the opening statement is not neutral because it starts of with a person-to-person remark; third, it's not exactly brief either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Meh. It's someone reverting me, and I don't mind the phrasing. The question is simple enough: use the left version or the right version (or propose your own). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The continued presence of a table means that the entry at WP:RFC/STYLE is still broken. Please either: put a timestamp (either bare, or as part of a signature) before the table; or reformat the opening statement so that no table is used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If anything, the RfC listing entry is now worse (permalink). Although the table is now gone, and all format breakage has vanished, there is no meaningful statement at all. It is certainly brief; its neutrality is questionable; but it tells us nothing about the problem. Please fix, or terminate this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@PBS:--To oppose an RFC in itself, you may choose to register an oppose comment with additional notes.Edits like this tampering with the RFC statement, aren't expected from someone with a mop.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Check the history of the section. I did not tamper with the RFC statement — there was none — and as my first posting to this section broke the RfC template when it was retrospectively added (see the comments by Redrose64), the second posting fixed the problem. The second posting that you called "tampering with the RFC statement" was nothing of the sort, because both were my postings I did not tamper with another's editors RfC posting. Now that has been pointed out you I hope you will strike out your false allegations. -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
And see WP:RFC: It's actually permissible to change RfC statement, not least by inserting a more neutral restatement of the question under a non-neutral one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
21:01, 13 October 2017 - note that it stops abruptly after an opening brace, this was because of the pipe immediately following that brace, to start a table
05:01, 14 October 2017 - no visible change, because the actual change was later in the text than that table start
There have been no subsequent changes to the RfC listing entry, but as things stand, it will change again at 15:01 (UTC) today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@PBS:--I hope that Redrose's comment makes the thing(s) a bit clearer.Whilst, obviously that wasn't your intention(s), the diff. I linked to, certainly had the ill-effect of turning the displayed portion of the RFC poser into n entirely meaningless thing at the listing page.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@PBS and SMcCandlish::--I have temporally removed the RFC tag and would like to see both of you to continue in some two-way disc. to check whether this can be resoved more easily.If not, we can surely open an RFC with a neutral statement.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with you "dis-RfCing" this. The question is quite clear: Use the version on the left or on the right (or propose your own). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish::--Thank you!That you feel there is no point in back-and-forth, it would be much-prudential to seek the opinions of the broader community!Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
"I cannot see a clear rationale against it," see my point (3.) at the start of this thread. Two sources against one makes the name used in those two "the most widely used", but it does not make that the name used by those two sources "widely used in English-language sources". However if there are 100 books split any which way between two names (even 51/49) that indicates that the name is "widely used in English-language sources" —- ie its a standard WP:COMMONNAME, English only sources. -- PBS (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Support: it is a perfectly sensible alteration. I am not entirely sure how this could be controversial, or how it has ended up as an RfC. –Sb2001 00:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@User:Sb2001 How is it a sensible alteration? If editors find three English language sources that use two names, one of which is therefore "the most widely use", but is is not "widely used in English-language sources". Are you really supporting a change of meaning to one that says ignore usage in foreign sources if just two English language sources use a name? I would argue that in such cases there is no established use in English language sources so use foreign sources instead. Let us now suppose that four books have been found two for one name two for the other. There is now no name "most widely used in modern English-language sources" so do we treat that differently from three sources? -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. I, too, am bothered by the lack of definition (or even a guideline) of what's considered "modern" and especially "the most widely used", but also by the fact that since Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, there are bound to be topics for which "modern" sources (whatever the definition) would simply be non-existent, in which case if the subject area falls outside the Anglosphere, do we really want to go with the non-English conventions just because existing English sources did not keep up? Not to mention the fact that the standards of "modern" would be different for different topics, which makes the addition quite pointless. If a criterion is going to be negotiated separately in each individual debate, why even mention it in a general guideline?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2017; 14:18 (UTC)
Oppose. Why change if editors even ignore the simpler old rule and remove evidence [1] for English language usage? 77.180.0.106 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Transliteration or Transcription
I see this article says: Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English.
The article about Transliteration states: Transliteration is not primarily concerned with representing the sounds of the original but rather with representing the characters, ideally accurately and unambiguously and Conversely, transcription notes the sounds but not necessarily the spelling.
Checking just 2 articles about Russia: Леони́д Ильи́ч Бре́жнев: transliteration: Leonid Il'ič Brežnev, transcription: Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev. Form in Wikipedia: Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (=transcription).
Никита Сергеевич Хрущёв: transliteration: Nikita Sergeevič Chruščëv, transcription: Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev. Form in Wikipedia: Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev (=transcription).
I have not come across one article in the English Wikipedia that uses the transliteration of Russian (or Ukrainian) names. So the statement above (... must be transliterated ... should be replaced by must be transcribed ...--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm seeing that there are some more hyphenation cases for academics from Spanish-speaking countries, where the double last name is hyphenated in English usage. For instance, Pablo Kuri-Morales does not have the hyphen in sources in Spanish, yet it is used in peer-reviewed publications. In fact, this example also has "Cuitláhuac Ruiz-Matus" and "José Narro-Robles". Speaking as someone who had never seen this prior to this week, I'm not a fan of these inserted hyphens. We'd have a lot of hyphenated last name articles on this encyclopedia if this were more regular, yet it is used in certain academic settings in English.
However, some style guides do not recommend this hyphenated styling for names from the Spanish-speaking world. APA advises no hyphen. I can't view it, but the Chicago Manual of Style has a subsection 16.84 specifically on the topic.
Is there a specific policy in this encyclopedia? Raymie (t • c) 07:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no mention of hyphens for Spanish surnames in WP:MOS. I would stick to WP:COMMONNAME when making a decision, and certainly give priority to how it is spelled in their countries of origin. I always thought that names surnames were hyphenated in the U.S. to avoid confusing people who might think the first surname is a middle name. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@MX: I'd be curious to have something common so that I can point to something. I'm either contemplating a test RM *or* an RfC, as I want some more feedback on the topic. It's a bit of an aberration done in some places in English, but by no means is it widespread (it primarily seems to be for people with connections to academia or academic research). Raymie (t • c) 05:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Hyphens in names from Spanish
Should Wikipedia style prefer hyphen or no hyphen for article titles of individuals from the Spanish-speaking world, particularly in academic contexts? Raymie (t • c) 06:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Context: In some academic examples in English, including some peer-reviewed journals, double names of individuals from the Spanish-speaking world are hyphenated (for instance, José Narro Robles versus José Narro-Robles). This is not done in Spanish, and it's not always done in English; the primary uses seem to be in academia. (Presumably, the practice originated to prevent confusion in some prior era.) In consulting style guides, I found that the APA does not suggest hyphenating names that carry no hyphen, explicitly mentioning those from the Spanish-speaking world; the Chicago Manual of Style has a section I cannot access on the topic. While I attempted to start a discussion above, I didn't get much editor feedback, thus the RFC. Raymie (t • c) 06:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:USEENGLISH says that we should use the name which is mostly commonly found in English-language sources. Sometimes, as with the Technical University of Berlin / Technische Universität Berlin, both the native name and a translation are widely used in English sources and it is impossible to tell which one is more common. In these cases, what should the tiebreaker be?
Give the edge to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, i.e. what the subject would prefer to be known as in English, which could be the native name or the translation.
Give the edge to the English translation. Note that WP:USEENGLISH does not currently say that we prefer names in English, but rather names which are most commonly used in English sources.
Keep the long-standing title, per WP:TITLECHANGES. This is the general default option when there is no specific guidance to do something different.
Comment: Thank you for the well-written (neutrally phrased) RfC. This particular combination of circumstances seems unlikely to arise very often, so I'm not sure we need a general rule for it. Perhaps you meant to refer to WP:TITLECHANGES rather than MOS:RETAIN. I don't think MOS:RETAIN applies, since that is about different variations of English, whereas here we have a question of English versus non-English. In the absence of a consensus in an RM discussion, I suggest that the article title should not be changed (and that is what happened in this example case). I tend to put very little weight on an institution's own preference, in the interest of maintaining Wikipedia as an independent source (e.g., in the spirit of MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM / MOS:ALLCAPS). When choosing between a title that is not very understandable/recognizable in English and one that is, I would tend somewhat toward the English-language title. Not very strongly, but somewhat preferring English. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I would definitely oppose #1, as the article title should be based on secondary, not primary sources. #2 seems like a good rule of thumb for editors when initially creating an article, but I fully support the interpretation of #3 that WP:TITLECHANGES would be the governing policy without a clear preference in English language sources for either the translated or native name. VanIsaacWScont 03:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
None of the above – borderline cases, like Technical University of Berlin vs. Technische Universität Berlin, obviously need to be sorted on a case-by-case basis. Talk:Technical University of Berlin has several RMs spanning more than a decade – although the idea is laudable to get it sorted once and for all via a guideline update, that won't work: the solution hardcoded in guidance may then work for this particular case (because of being tailored to that case), but not for other cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I assume you mean option 3 then; that is the status quo which applies if there is no guideline update. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean #3 – I meant this was another ill-prepared RfC, not even listing the most obvious choice (was just trying to convey that message as politely as possible). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
And the case-by-case basis failed here, and there was no consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"failed"? – I don't see any failure whatsoever in the events leading up to this RfC, and certainly not against the WP:CONSENSUS policy. The RfC has, however, again, written failure all over it, while not following the simple recommendations of WP:RFC – again, the RfC was not well prepared in contravention of that guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
By "failed" I don't mean a failure in process - I simply mean that the discussion failed to reach a consensus. None of the other participants seem to have any trouble with this RfC, so if you're having trouble understanding my words I don't think it's my problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Use English should be given preference. It's already common practice. Renata (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The WP:USEENGLISH criteria do not provide any help in cases when both names seem to widely used in English sources. WP:USEENGLISH is about the most widely used used in English sources and not about using English words.SFBB (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
When two names are widely used in English sources (i.e. the main criteria in WP:USEENGLISH does not apply), I believe (for consistency purposes) that the edge should be given to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, as it is the case in Mumbai, Nur-Sultan, Eswatini, or Kolkata, among many others. Furthermore, and especially when the name has changed and in line with both WP:DIVIDEDUSE and WP:NAMECHANGES, it is important to take into account the evolution of the naming in English sources and the date of the references.SFBB (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
In the particular case at hands, there has been a change in the official position of the university towards its English name in 2014, which comes to be like name change. Hence, it is difficual to argue for WP:TITLECHANGES in this case.SFBB (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Give the edge to the common native name (which is not necessarily the official name, any more than it is in English-speaking countries). Translating for the sake of it is never a good idea. WP:UE should only apply if an English translation is overwhelmingly used in English-language sources. It may surprise some, but there are many of us native English-speakers who can handle names in other languages with perfect ease and regard slavish (and often poor) translation without evidence of common usage as ignorant and unnecessary. We are probably the same people who prefer foreign-languages films to be subtitled rather than dubbed! Incidentally, I am dubious about "what the subject would prefer to be known as in English", as I have seen some translations into very poor English on official websites and also misguided assumptions that native English speakers can't handle furrin and need to have everything translated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
