Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Foreign Artwork

I originally posted this to WikiProject Arts, but I haven't received a response; I thought this policy page might get more discussion.

I have a specific question about the naming of articles for famous sculptures, but I imagine that this issue applies to all art forms. What is the specific policy for the naming of articles for pieces of art with foreign names? I see a fair amount of inconsistency here, as I find many articles with english titles (and the foreign name given in parentheses), and a fair amount with articles with native language titles (and the english title given in parentheses). For example:

Is there a pre-existing policy for artwork that we can follow? Can we agree on some consistent naming standard for artwork? --DDG 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Afaik only in music there are separate "naming conventions" guidelines like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas), and Album titles and band names. Note that, for instance, the "operas" naming convention leads to a mixture of English and Foreign names. Deliberately. The key word is recognisability: The Magic Flute, and La Bohème are the most recognisable names. The first happens to be English, the second happens to be French.
For Art I suppose that the combination of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (with again recognisability as ultimate judge) usually should lead to an acceptable name.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has an Art example: Venus de Milo (French, more recognisable than Aphrodite of Melos) - There is no language rule whatsoever implied: the Mona Lisa is located in the same museum as the Venus de Milo, nonetheless the French name of that painting ("La Gioconde") is less recognisable for an average English speaker. --Francis Schonken 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Korean native names

This guideline currently reads " However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name). " [1]. Yet the manual of style for Korean-related topics stipulates the use of infoboxes instead of the conventional inline-style for all other languages. I'd suggest to add an exceptional clause to this guideline so as to avoid the conflict with the Korean one. Alternatively, the Korean MOS would have to be modified. — Instantnood 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. Otherwise we're going to go back to having "name soup" in the first line of every Korea-related article, since most Korean-language names are represented in 4 (or more) different ways. The name tables are well established in the Korea-related articles, and do a much better job than any in-line method. -- Visviva 22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. Masterhatch 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I myself have no preference towards the inline-style nor the box-style. But since it's already an established practice provided by the Korean MOS, an exception clause to WP:UE is necessary to avoid a conflict of guidelines. — Instantnood 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would propose to add the following clause to WP:UE, " Korean-related topics are excepted from this requirement, since it has been an established practice to use the infobox-style, and is regulated by [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)]]. ", following " transliteration of the native name). ". — Instantnood 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clear transliteration guideline

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) gives a great convension about which transliterated form to use. It distinguishes three types of transliteration (read the page for more details):

Primary transliteration

A name has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in English use the same transliteration, and if that transliteration does not contain any non-printable characters (including underscores). Primary transliterations may sometimes be less accurate than other transliterations.

Google searches can be useful in determining the most common usage, but should not be heavily relied upon. The content of large searches may not be relevant to the subject being discussed. For example, القائم has a standard transliteration of "al-Qa'im", but "al-Qaim" receives five times as many hits.

Standard transliteration

The standard transliteration uses a systematic convention of rendering Arabic script into English which is used and standardized by academics and linguists.

Strict transliteration

A strict transliteration is uniquely reversible and allows recreating of the original writing. A strict transliteration need not be a 1:1 mapping of characters. A source character may be mapped (1:n) into a sequence of several target characters without losing sequential reversibility.

The standard transliteration does not carry enough information to accurately write or pronounce the original Arabic script. The standard transliteration does not differentiate between several letters, or between long and short vowels. A strict transliteration is one that uses a system of accents, underscores, and underdots to render the original Arabic in a form that carries all the information held in the original Arabic.

Plus it adds the following guidelines:

  • If an Arabic article has a primary transliteration, then it should be used as the article title.
  • If an Arabic article does not have a primary transliteration, the standard transliteration should be used as the article title.
  • The strict transliteration should not be used in article titles.

I would like to add this to this guideline because it simplifies and propose a clear guideline about how to transliterate, unless you prefer to create a page for this issue. CG 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Native names"

Should names in different official languages be regarded as "native names" for international organisations? The official languages of the FIFA, for instance, are French, English, German and Spanish, whereas for the UPU the official languages are French and English. — Instantnood 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would propose to add " For international organisations, names in their official languages are "native names" in this context. " before " Also, a non-Latin-alphabet ... ". — Instantnood 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Scottish monarchs

Has anyone noticed that all of the articles on early Scottish monarchs have been moved to the Gaelic forms? This seems to be in direct violation of all applicable naming conventions.

I started a discussion at Talk:Máel Coluim II of Scotland. [Cross post at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 03:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A requested move has now been added at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland. john k 23:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese help

I hope this is an appropriate place to ask this... if it isn't, please direct me to the correct page. ^_^

Alright, I have a question about what we should do for a One Piece character on the Cipher Pol page. The character has not yet shown up in any English releases, and isn't going to for a very long time. The author has never written the character's name in anything trustworthy (the only time he's written it, he spelled other character's names that he has confirmed spellings for wrong...). So, the character has never been given an "official" spelling for his name. The most common (used in almost all scanlations, fansubs, and discussions, and getting over 6000 hits on Google) spelling of his name is Jyabura. However, according to Hepburn romanization, this is incorrect, and his name should actually be spelled "Jabura". However, this spelling is used much less commonly, only getting around 2000 hits on Google...

So, now that I've explained the situation, here's my question: Should we go with the more "correct" spelling (Jabura), despite the fact that it's less common? Should we go with the much more common spelling, despite the fact that it uses a more obscure romanization (Jyabura)? Or should we use the spelling the author used in the earlier mentioned page (Jabra)? We'd like to know, as we can't seem to come to an agreement about what the policy is for this. Thanks for any help anyone can give us! - Murasaki Seiko 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

German names using ß

Having recently been to Germany and started writing a series of articles on German history and places, I have been waylaid by a small number of people who insist that the word "strasse" must be rendered "straße" in article titles. In my view this is plainly a violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), since "ß" is German ligature of "ss" and is not a letter of the Latin alphabet as it is used in the English-speaking world. It is not recognised by most English-speakers (let alone people, other than Germans, using English as a second language): most will read "Voßstraße" as "Vobstrabe." I have wasted hours arguing about this at Voss-strasse, Wilhelmstrasse and elewhere, and now I am sick of it. I would like a firm policy determination on this matter, one way or the other. If there is a decision that "ß" is acceptable, I will accept that, but I am sure that a poll would reject that position. I would like some advice from people who frequent this page on how to bring the matter to a decision. Adam 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ß, though historically a ligature of 'ss' is now a separate letter in German - with a different phonetic value from 'ss'. Those of our readers who care about streets in Germany will typically know enough German to know how to pronounce ß correctly. Those who don't will pronounce names like Voßstraße incorrectly anyhow (probably pronouncing 'v' as [v] rather than [f] etc.)
For names which can be said to have a common English form, like Gauß/Gauss it's fine to go with the 'ss' version - the article on Gauss is of generic interest. For marginally notable Germans or marginally notable streets in Berlin it's fine to use the 'ß' because those articles will mostly by read by people who know the letter or would be interested to learn about it. So we don't need a generic proclamation on ß - we can keep on deciding it on a case-by-case basis as we have been doing. Occasionally debates arise but that can't be helped and wouldn't be helped even if you managed to squeeze something into a guideline page somewhere. We're essentially incapable of making binding decisions because new people show up all the time and don't want to abide by something the old farts decided :) I know this can sometimes be annoying but it's not so horrible in this case. Haukur 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
see also WP:BCE :p dab (ᛏ) 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
A good example. Wikipedia is not consistent, please don't force consistency in issues like this. Kusma (討論) 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Though I have enormous respect for Haukur's opinions, in this one case, I'm afraid I have to disagree. I think it is worth creating a Wikipedia guideline that says that the use of the "ß" character is not recommended on the English Wikipedia. Yes, there are some people that will ignore the guideline, and I do see Haukur's point that on some specific pages, the readership will self-regulate as to who does and doesn't understand the character. However, there are many people on Wikipedia who do look to the guidelines to make a decision in borderline cases, and for them, I think it's worth stating that given a choice, it's preferable to stick with the A-Z "English" letters on the English Wikipedia. --Elonka 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think use of ß in the main article text needs no regulation at all. If a guideline about titles is necessary, I would propose adding {{foreignchar}} to every article with funny symbols in the title. Fortunately Wikipedia uses Unicode so the technical limitation of other encyclopedias to avoid funny characters is not an issue here. Kusma (討論) 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice to have a vote of confidence out of the blue :) I also think you've grown a lot as a Wikipedian since I saw you first, you should be about ripe for adminship now. Haukur 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple others links worth reading, are from when this subject came up almost exactly one year ago: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 3#Proposal on the use of ß, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 31#German eszet. --Elonka 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
An attempt to enforce a site-wide ban on the character ß would be a very bad idea indeed. There is no technical reason to avoid it, or to treat it differently from other unfamiliar accented letters, ligatures and other characters outside the 26 of the "English alphabet". The only argument against it is that it might confuse readers, the corollary being that by transcribing it, we patronise them. Unfamiliarity is not a reason to hide things from people; an encyclopædia exists to clarify and to educate, not to cover up.
At the moment, we decide on a case-by-case basis which topics are known well enough under the "ss" spelling to be more understandable like that to the average reader, and which are not and thereby default to the native (ß) spelling. There are, inevitably, conflicts over the borderline cases, but that is the lesser of two evils. The symbol in question is used by the vast majority of editors writing on German-language topics, and there are hundreds of pages with it in their titles. To ban ß would be to create a huge amount of unnecessary work for very little gain.
This proposal has been tried before and failed then. Judging from the attempts to find a consensus at the subsequent page move debates, I don't think a strong consensus will be found this time, either.
I must disagree with Elonka; where there is doubt, it's better to stick to a demonstrably correct spelling. The idea that the English writing system comprises a rigid set of 26 letters is over-simplistic, especially when dealing with foreign place-names and personal names.
The English Wikipedia, although primarily intended for an English-speaking audience is, de facto, the global edition, and is read by people of many nationalities and many mother tongues, including German.
--Stemonitis 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
how about recommending ß should only appear in proper names (as always: unless they are notable enough to have familiar anglicizations, such as Gauss)? Spelling German terms in general with ß would be discriminating against the Swiss, too (the humanity!) dab (ᛏ) 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the "ß" character should be banned entirely from Wikipedia. I'm only talking about article titles themselves, which I believe should use the English spelling, and then the native spelling can (and should) be included in the first paragraph of the article. Ultimately, the deciding factor for me on many of these cases, is to fall back on standard Wikipedia policy, of "most common usage" in English-language sources. If it can be shown that a particular subject is most often spelled with the "ß" in an article's English-language sources, then by all means, the article title should reflect that. If, however, the article's sources tend to use the "ss" spelling, then that's what should be used on Wikipedia, per policy in WP:NAME: article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. --Elonka 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I find that the expression the English spelling is one of the most irritating thrown about in these debates, since everybody appears to assume they know what it means without pausing to consider that there is no "the English spelling" of non-English terms. Tempelhof-Schöneberg or Graf Zeppelin do not have an "English spelling" because the terms aren't English in the first place (and yet WP has articles about them). Often, there will be various anglicizations or translations which will have to be looked at case by case. Your remark on common usage is spot on, of course (viz., case by case). In the famous Zürich vs. Zurich precedent, English sources were divided, and of course at this point the haggling will begin between proponents of "count google hits", "prefer academic authorities" and various other convictions. Our recommendation should be: "check usage in notable English language sources, then use your common sense." pages and pages of guidelines will not get us further than this. dab (ᛏ) 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree about the irritation: it's like nails on a blackboard when editors vote against a proposal boldly proclaiming that obviously the word háček contains letters which aren't in the English alphabet. I'm against over-specification: consistency is the hobgoblin, etc. But I would agree that the ß is unfamiliar and unreadable to most English readers, and in a prominent place like an article title should probably be replaced with an anglicized spelling (isn't ss an acceptable alternative in German?). Evidence of this is that the scharfes s is often used by programmers and online gamers as a fancy letter B, as in an abbreviation of "beta version".  —Michael Z. 2006-09-12 20:11 Z

Thanks for all the above comments. The problem with this "case by case" approach is that certain zealots insist on moving articles I have written to include ß in the title when I have chosen not to do so eg Vossstrasse, whereas if I try to move an article from (say) Wilhelmstraße to Wilhelmstrasse I am ruthlessly reverted. I maintain my view that ß should not appear in article titles, but if there is no consensus on this then there has to be an agreement that articles will not be moved in either direction. If this does not happen, I will begin to move all the ß articles to non-ß forms, triggering a series of edit wars which will then require intervention from on high - this often being the only way to get a decision about anything around here. Adam 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's more or less how it is now, requiring no new policy decision. Pages should, of course, only be moved when there is some other compelling reason to do so. In the case which sparked off this latest round of acrimony, "Voss-strasse" was moved, not because of the ß per se, but because the inclusion of a hyphen was interpreted as original research. I assume that that editor was acting in good faith (he gave a reason for his move at least), and no other pages have been moved. So we're back at the status quo, which everyone except Adam Carr seemed happy with. Edit wars are unhelpful, and threats of edit wars doubly so, since they are only likely to raise the hackles of editors with other opinions. --Stemonitis 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That was not the reason ProhibitOnions moved the article, as a review of the Talk pages will show. He moved it because he insists that ß should be used.
  • As I have said, this is not just about Vossstrasse, there are several other articles I have written or edited which need to be brought into conformity. There needs to be a policy one way or another. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
  • I didn't threaten an edit war, I predicted one, in fact several, if there is no fixed policy on this matter. If I move Wilhelmstraße to Wilhelmstrasse, as I am entitled to do in the absence of a policy to the contrary, there will certainly be an edit war. Adam 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "I propose the following: Rename the article "Vossstrasse." This will eliminate the objections regarding the hyphenation and capitalization issues, and leave the ß/ss issue aside (and in your "favor") until a consensus regarding special characters can be reached" — ProhibitOnions, [2]. ProhibitOnions makes clear elsewhere on the page that it is the hyphen he objects to, and not the ß.
  • I see no reason why articles need to be brought into conformity. That goes against the practice of following common usage.
  • They are only wars if both sides fight. Who was it that said "The easiest way to end a war is to lose it"? When you say that there will be an edit war, that is an indication that you intend to "fight" in one, and is thus a threat. --Stemonitis 08:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to read the whole history, not just the most recent exchange. If it was just about the hyphen there would have been no issue.
  • Of course articles need to be brought into conformity. This is an encyclopaedia, not a kindergarten.
  • Sometimes wars need to be won (I could cite several examples). I am trying to avert an edit war by asking for a policy determination. In the absence of law, however, the only alternative is war. Adam 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I find this militaristic terminology inflammatory and inappropriate for a discussion about an encyclopædia. --Stemonitis 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse." John Stuart Mill. If you want to avoid a war, then make a contribution to establishing the rule of law in this area, which is always the best guarantor of peace. Adam 08:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
@Adam,
  1. You have a point, maybe even a valid point;
  2. You disclose your intentions to illustrate that point by starting a move war;
  3. Causing move wars is considered disruptive, see WP:TT, 6th row, for the templates that warn against that kind of disruption.
  4. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which exposes you to being blocked for up to one month.
Guidelines (and most often, but not exclusively, MoS type of guidance) can allow multiple options. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests contains quite some cases with rulings against Wikipedians who think that the fact that a guideline offers several possibilities presupposes the right to "harmonise" Wikipedia to a single one of the described options. If guidance allows multiple options, trying to enforce a single option is considered disruptive.
I'm just trying to get you out of your illusion that it would pe possible to make a change in policy emerge by starting to act disruptively. In fact with what you disclosed above, it would already be possible to block you per WP:POINT. Not that I think that a good idea (yet!). But the moment you start disruption the WP:POINT guidance would better be applied without delay, imho. --Francis Schonken 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I would start a war. I said I would move Wilhelmstraße to Wilhelmstrasse, as I am entitled to do in the absence of a policy to the contrary, not to make a point but because I believe the move to be correct. I know from past experience that if I do this there will be an edit war, because the move will be reverted by the eszettistas and I will oppose the reversion, etc. I am trying to prevent that state of affairs by requesting a firm policy that everyone knows and has to abide by. Human history shows that anarchy, the absence of law, always leads to war. Adam 09:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Our rule on British vs American spelling is to leave the original author's spelling alone and to block anyone who insists on making wholesale changes from one variant of English to the other. Maybe we need something like that here to prevent the anarchy you are so afraid of? Kusma (討論) 09:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A weak analogy. No-one disputes that ß is not English. The en.Wikipedia must accommodate variant forms of English. It does not have to accommodate German. Adam 09:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the absence of a binding decision one way or the other is accompanied by a rule that prevents anarchy. Kusma (討論) 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I dispute this, you are right - ß is not an English or latin character, it is 2 English or Latin characters. It is a ligature pure and simple. By the same token œ is a ligature of 'oe', and so forth. Lets use the correct terms here. ß is not a letter or a character, it is a code point. If the assumption that all non-"English" characters could not be used in the English Wikipedia, then the powers that be wouldn't have recently allowed titles to be in UTF-8. So I'm all in favour of the same rules that apply to American/British English - the original author gets to decide. --kjd 03:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your position amounts to saying that I am prohibited from making an edit, regardless of the merits of the edit, and regardless of the fact that the edit contrvenes no policy, if I can reasonably expect that the edit will be reverted. I reject this proposition. Adam 09:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK well you people have been no help at all, so thanks a lot. I am now going to move Wilhelmstraße to Wilhelmstrasse (or get an Admin to do so): not because I want to start a war, or to make a point, but because I believe that is the correct title for the article under Wikipedia's Naming conventions policy, which states: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. (thanks to Masterhatch below for pointing that out). Then we will see what happens. If there is trouble as a result, it will be the fault of people such as those here who have declined to find a solution to this problem. Adam 00:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

this ß thing

This ß is not an English character (nor Latin for that matter) and is very rarely found in English publications. Since this is the English section of wikipedia, the most common spelling in English should be used. If there is no common spelling in English, maybe the subject isn't notable enough to have an article. If the subject can't be found in English dictionaries, encyclopaedias, reference books, media works, biographies, atlases, etc. then maybe, just maybe it doesn't deserve an article in English wikipedia. If the subject is found in said sources in English, then maybe it does deserve an artice and in that case, the most common spelling in English should be used (which in the vast majority of cases does not include ß). I am not saying that ß should be banned, but i am saying that most English speakers have no idea what it is (including me until i went to germany a couple of years ago) and this policy is very clear when it states "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." This ß should be used in the first line of the first paragraph to show the native German spelling. It should not be used in the title. Masterhatch 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

However this is resolved, the policy needs to be consistent. If it is determined that ß should not appear in article titles, then neither should á é í ó ú à è ì ò ù â ê î ô û ä ö ü ã ñ õ ç č š ž ð þ œ æ etc. Perhaps we could even extend the ban to j, which also appears only in words of foreign origin in English. Angr 13:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I suggest you go away and read Reductio ad absurdum before inflicting such infantile absurdities on us. Come back when you have an intelligent contribution to make. Adam 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read reductio ad absurdum, I can only interpret the above comment as both a non sequitur and a personal attack. A reductio ad absurdum is a kind of logical fallacy; there is no logical fallacy in my statement above. Depending on your definition of "English word", either all of the above characters are used in English words, or none of them is. Angr 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To suggest that because I oppose the use of "ß" on the grounds that most English-speakers don't recognise it, I must therefore also oppose the use of "é", which every literate English-speaker is familiar with, is indeed absurd, and can only have been put forward in the tone of heavy-handed "irony" which disfigures so much debate at Wikipedia. I am entitled to respond to such insulting childishness in a tone of asperity, which I did. If you don't like the response, don't provoke it. Adam 14:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that most English speakers don't recognize ß? Where is the evidence that every literate English speaker is familiar with é? The only insulting behavior going on here is your assumption that most English speakers are incapable of reading and understanding our article ß. (And I do wonder what that article will be renamed if your proposed policy is implemented.) Angr 14:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh very droll. You can't help yourself, can you? Adam 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you've both got PhDs! Act your age or the Umlaut Monster will get you!! :) Haukur 17:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Shut up guys, Angr has a good point. Although I disagree with him on a lot of things, I respect him a lot as should you. He is a pro and knows what he is talking about, so quit giving him a hard time. All he is saying is that there is no point we should not use a special character simply because it is not used in English.Cameron Nedland 14:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Angr. —Nightstallion (?) 19:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Related poll

A suggested move and related debate about whether to name an article "Meissen" or "Meißen" is ongoing at Talk:Meissen. Interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stale active discussion

I found a link in Disputed issues to a discussion that now is in the new 'Naming conventions' archive, and redirected the link there. However, after reading the Disputed issues section more carefully, I got cold feet, and reverted. The list heading was 'Related proposals and active discussions'; and I don't want people to add their comments to an archived 'active discussion'.

This is the first time I visit this page. Couldn't someone who regularly is here check over the links under 'Related proposals and active discussions', and in case they are archived either remove them, or else both update and relabel them? JoergenB 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Input desired

There is a debate going on at Talk:Árpád Élő regarding the proper naming on the English WikiPedia for people with dialectrics in their name. Input from the people involved in working on this guideline would be helpful. And please leave the PhD speak behind. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(I shouldn't, but can't resist:) seems like fun. Anyway, I take note of your proposal that henceforth, in order to avoid the "accents" vs. "diacritics" terminology disputes, we call them "dialectrics" (i.e. an insulator between two electric fields). Doesn't that solve it all? --Francis Schonken 13:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Copied the above (quite appropriately I think) to Wikipedia:ßåd Jøkës åñd Øthër Ðélètêd Ñøñsëñsé --Francis Schonken 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Ugg. Should not type before morning coffee. Thanks for the trout slap. :) --StuffOfInterest 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Artwork naming conventions

I originally posted this to WikiProject Arts and Visual Arts, but I haven't received a concrete response there; I thought it might be time to bring this to the broader policy page.

I have a specific question about the naming of articles for famous sculptures, but I imagine that this issue applies to all art forms. What is the specific policy for the naming of articles for pieces of art with foreign names? I see a fair amount of inconsistency here, as I find many articles with english titles (and the foreign name given in parentheses), and a fair amount with articles with native language titles (and the english title given in parentheses). For example:

Is there a pre-existing policy for artwork that we can follow? Can we agree on some consistent naming standard for artwork? If the policy really is supposed to be "use English", should we move all of the "native" named articles to their english titles for consistency? --DDG 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote the same above (#Foreign Artwork) - there's still an answer there --Francis Schonken 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this "Latin" alphabet?

Those who insist that we must use the "Latin" alphabet ask for something pretty much impossible, I submit. I speak English and Spanish, neither of which use the Latin alphabet, as far as I can tell. In English, we have changed the alphabet to include the letters "J", "U", and "W", none of which, I have always thought, were present in the alphabet of the Romans (which is what I would call the "Latin" alphabet). Germans have inserted the "ß", Spaniards the "Ñ", well, you get the picture. The Latin alphabet is, by and large, used in Latin classes, as far as I can tell. Unschool 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so no disagreement there. I submit, then, that as a corollary to this concept, that since the "Latin" alphabet is not used in English, and since we have a Wikipedia policy that states "Use English", that we use only the English alphabet. That is, the 26 letters found on any English keyboard, the 26 letters used to head up the 26 sections of any English-language dictionary, the same 26 letters that every schoolchild in England, Australia, and the United States learns when learning to read. I would propose changing the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), to read as follows:
Article titles should use the English alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems such as syllabaries or Chinese characters. However, any non-English-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with an English-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name). Also, a non-English-alphabet redirect could be created to link to the actual English-alphabet-titled article.
I don't know enough about proposing policy to know where this should be posted, and would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Unschool 06:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The "English alphabet" does include many accented characters, but which are only seldom used. See English language#Written accents and English words with diacritics. In particular, any attempts to remove accents from foreign-language article titles (of which there are a great many) will be met with disapproval. The policy is meant only to exclude entirely different writing systems, such as Arabic script, Chinese logograms, the Hebrew alphabet, Cyrillic and so on, and not to affect Latin-based alphabets. Trying to expand this to cover the (largely unrelated) topic of accented characters and ligatures is a step too far. Accents are necessary; 26 characters are simply not enough. Perhaps a change to "Latin-based alphabets" would provide the necessary clarification without requiring sweeping and unwelcome changes to thousands of article titles. --Stemonitis 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "Latin alphabet" is not one we've just invented, as our article on it (linked from the convention page) makes clear. To quote from it: In modern usage, the term Latin alphabet is used for any straightforward derivation of the alphabet used by the Romans. You may not like the term very much, but that doesn't stop it being correct. Proteus (Talk) 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with it, but it does seem to get misinterpreted relatively often. If it does need to be clarified, then I reckon "Latin-based alphabet" is better than "English alphabet". That's all I was trying to say. Dare I ask (as an aside) what "straightforward" is supposed to mean in that context? That looks like another loophole that people could use to argue that some characters are not "straightforward" enough and must be eschewed. --Stemonitis 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Burma v. Myanmar

I would like to receive input on whether using "Burma/Myanmar" is fine in naming a Wikiproject, or whether one alternative is better than the other. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Burma/Myanmar#Project_name. Thank you.--Hintha 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ælfric and other Old English names

Section (and subsections) moved in from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Ælfric and other Old English names by Francis Schonken 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a tendency, which I think is a good one, to use the proper Old English forms for personal names (such as Ælfric) from the Anglo-Saxon period in England, rather than forms like Aelfric, even worse, AElfric. Given the widespread availability of extended fonts, I think we should reconsider the current recommendation "that their use be avoided in article titles." My vote would go for judging Old English ligatures by the same critieria that are applied in this article to other accents and diacritics. This could be accomplished by deleting them from the section on other types of diacritics and adding the following to the section on scope:

Let the discussion begin. --SteveMcCluskey 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After carefully reading the article on ligatures, I think the change should be limited to the Old English ligature/character Æ/æ, and not extend to other ligatures. --SteveMcCluskey 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Proper names seems to approve the use of Æ in names, in which case the change I've proposed has the merit of consistency. --SteveMcCluskey 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be less sweeping. Some of the problems with exceptional characters, like alphabetization, still apply to Æ; see Category:Archbishops of Canterbury. The page you reference is in fact a polite way of saying that there is no consensus on the spelling of Ægir; which is demonstrated every time the matter comes up. Septentrionalis 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately we can give these entries a sort tag so the alphabetization of the category is a non-issue. Kusma (討論) 08:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone does it; the Archbishops haven't been. But it would be simpler, and perhaps less jarring, to use Aelfric. Septentrionalis 05:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed them. Kusma (討論) 08:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
After this helpful discussion, I changed the article, but further restricting the Æ use in titles to proper names.
Thanks much. --SteveMcCluskey 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Change article name and scope?

The changes concerning the ligature Æ, discussed above, were reverted. The reason given that "a 'ligature' is not a 'letter with a diacritic'," which is the topic of this propoal and recommended that this should be put in another guideline proposal.

I see the point, but this page already discusses (and recommends against) the use of ligatures in the section on other types of diacritics, non-standard letters and ligatures, which was apparently inconsistent with the Wikipedia page on Proper names.

It seems wisest to consolidate the guidelines for non-standard characters in a single place, rather than scatter them throughout Wikipedia. Since this page seems the ideal place for such a guideline, I suggest this page be renamed to the broader (if less precise) "Naming conventions (accented and non-standard letters)."

Although the previous discussion seemed to achieve consensus on the use the ligature (or letter) Æ (æsc) in Old English proper names, and many, if not most, Old English articles currently do use it, perhaps its time to reopen the discussion on that point as well. Whatever we decide, Naming standards for non-standard letters should be put in one place. --SteveMcCluskey 07:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with using it, but using "Ae" in the sort key. It seems that Æ may, at least in some cases (see Ælnoth of Canterbury), be transliterated as either "Ae" or "Ai", so both these variants should be accessible through redirects. (Aelfric and Ailfric both redirecting to Ælfric). But I don't know enough about Old English to know if "Ai" is always a legitimate variant or if it is dependent on what follows. u p p l a n d 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Uppland, this subsection started by Steve is, as far as I understand, not about whether or not to use Æ - it is about where (that is: in which guideline or proposal) to place the proposals/consensus regarding Æ. --Francis Schonken 08:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

@Steve: Best to approach this thorny field as non-dogmatic as possible. I derive that maxim from the experience that the dogmatic approaches have failed thus far.

"all ligatures, diacritics, non-standard letters (which then would also include Greek, Arabic, etc letters?) on the same guideline page" is dogmatic. All of them on separate guideline pages would, of course, be as dogmatic.

I see no problem whatsoever why the use of Æ/æ (and Œ/œ?) in English words (that is: where the use of such ligature derives from words that have their origins in old English like Ælfric or more modern English like Encyclopædia Britannica) couldn't be treated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)?

Anyway, the discussion of the Æ/æ ligature (which seems somewhat rooted in English for a considerable length of time) seems, to me at least, different from, for example, the ß ligature, which as far as I know is only used in German loan words or maybe even exclusively in German proper names.

But I'm indifferent how things are grouped in guidelines, which would always be subject to consensus. Only: the page name should cover the content, for example Wikipedia:Naming conventions (thorn), was clear and the proposal covered *exactly* what the name said. No consensus was reached on that proposal, but not because of sloppy naming of the proposal (which would only have worsened the case).

Note that a guideline named Naming conventions (accented and non-standard letters) would inevitably have to cover issues currently covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), etc, each of which need some expertise in the specific field treated in these naming conventions guidelines and proposals. If you feel like taming all that expertise in a single guideline, who am I to stop you? Based on my previous experience, I'd describe this, however, as an attempt to run against a brick wall head first (without helmet, that is).

Note also that ligatures like æ and œ are arguably standard letters (a, o, e) combined in a single character. So, some could argue they don't even have a place in Naming conventions (accented and non-standard letters).

So what would you think about my idea to treat Æ/æ/Œ/œ in WP:UE? --Francis Schonken 08:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Æ/æ/Œ/œ - rules proposal

Apart from the discussion of where to place the rules/proposals (see previous subsection), here are some ideas for what I might see as relevant guidance:

Æ/æ/Œ/œ, use in CONTENT page (redirects can, and in many cases *should*, be created with other variants):

  1. Not as a standard transliteration technique for words from Greek and Roman antiquity, e.g.
    • Æneas → Aeneas;
    • Julius Cæsar → Julius Caesar (also applies when such name is e.g. included in the title of a Shakespeare play);
    • Œdipus → Oedipus.
  2. OK for old English words if it is the way they're usually written:
  3. Exceptions derived from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology):
  4. More modern English words and expressions:
    1. Brand names, commercial products: if it is the correct way to write the name in English according to the owner of the trademark, e.g.:
    2. Other proper nouns: follow Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns if both the noun with ligature and without ligature occur in English:
    3. Article names (or parts thereof) that are not part of a proper name: don't use these ligatures:
      • encyclopædia (not part of a proper name as in the example above) → encyclopedia.

--Francis Schonken 10:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis,
Thanks for the thoughtful list of criteria; they seem quite complete and meet many of my concerns. Let me think about them for a while and I'll get back on them. I'm not quite sure where they belong, but perhaps they could be put in WP:UE as you suggest, as long as we avoid inconsistencies. Right now I'm in the midst of some major projects in my real life, and it may be a few days before I can give them the attention they deserve.
To avoid inconsistencies I'd like to change the passage in the current article that caused me to open this discussion in the first place. It's at the end of the section on ...non-standard letters and ligatures:
"As a result, this guideline recommends that their use [e.g., æ,Æ] be avoided in article titles."
If we want to avoid conflicts with what is finally decided on other guidelines we could put in something less dogmatic like:
"As a result, this guideline neither recommends nor discourages their use in article titles"
An alternative to, or continuation of, the above would be something like.
"For specific guidance on the use of these symbols see the appropriate guidelines." and provide links in the preceding list from those symbols for which guidelines are developed to the appropriate article.
Best wishes --SteveMcCluskey 00:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a fair solution to me, and that's coming from one of the strongest supporters of ß and ð. —Nightstallion (?) 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated:

--Francis Schonken 15:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion unless there is common usage to to back it up. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's common usage to back it up (read the above, please, quite some examples were used), so I can only interpret this as an agreement. --Francis Schonken 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no common usage exception to this one: "Brand names, commercial products: if it is the correct way to write the name in English according to the owner of the trademark, e.g.:" --Philip Baird Shearer 11:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, err, what do you want: "common usage" or "common usage exception" (if there's no "common usage exception" then there's "common usage")? "Brand names, commercial products: if it is the correct way to write the name in English according to the owner of the trademark, e.g.:" is common usage. --Francis Schonken 11:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • about 987,000 English pages for -nestle Nestlé
  • about 1,480,000 English pages for nestle -Nestlé
  • about 619 English pages for -muller-light Müller-light
  • about 16,300 English pages for muller-light -Müller-light

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • about 623,000 English pages for "Encyclopædia Britannica" -"Encyclopaedia Britannica"
  • about 895,000 English pages for -"Encyclopædia Britannica" "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
  • about 997,000 English pages for -"Encyclopædia Britannica" "Encyclopedia Britannica"

Just to cover your inevitable comment that Nestlé and Müller are not covered by this proposal. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And? Google is notoriously unreliable when it comes to these kinds of spelling variants. We made the article title eBay once that became technically possible. "encyclopedia Britannica" is technically correct (only the second word reffering to the brand name, the first word referring to what it is: an encyclopedia) and gives as many hits as "Encyclopedia Britannica".
Please move the diacritic examples to somewhere where they're relevant, not in this section about Æ/æ/Œ/œ. Or delete them, because as said, and as far as I'm concerned that needs no further demonstration, Google is notoriously unreliable to find out "common name" when it comes to these kind of minor spelling variants involving diacritics and ligatures. If these could be reliably demonstrated by Google, there wouldn't have been a problem about these in the first place.
Further, in case you hadn't noticed yet, and if you insist on casting doubt on what is the most common name for a brand product that is on the market in English speaking countries, then the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns needs to be followed. It *always* leads to the "correct way to write the name in English according to the owner of the trademark", because that name is *always* the self-identified name (criterion 3 in the chart), and *always* the official name (criterion #2: trademark registration is as official as one gets for brand names). Since this *always* leads to two criteria out of the three mentioned in that chart confirming the "trademark" name, we have Encyclopædia Britannica, Nestlé (Nestle is a redirect), Citroën (Citroen is a redirect), etc.
Further I'm appalled that you still don't get the basic rules of google searching: among others "-Wikipedia" is an obligatory parameter for avoidance of circularity, see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Ambiguity persists. Not that it would help the diacritic and ligature related google searches, which are simply unreliable.
Currently "There is disagreement over whether to use œ and æ" is no longer correct, I have no knowledge of lingering naming conflicts involving these ligatures. Do you? --Francis Schonken 10:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Francis please stop the personal attacks, I am not sure why you are doing it because even when I disagree with you, I think you usually argue through the use of rational debating points which puts your point across more effectively. There is still disagreement over the use of œ and æ. I think have contributed as much as I can constructively to this discussion. Until others join in and raise other points I'll write no more on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. "There is still disagreement over the use of œ and æ" - where? I have come to think we're cultivating something that has become a rather artificial problem for some time now. I used "we" in the previous sentence, expressing that I'm probably as guilty to that as you are. At least, currently, I'm prepared to drop issues that no longer cause practical problems.
If you stop commenting on this issue, probably because you can't find recent or ongoing discussions about Æ/æ/Œ/œ in article titles, that OK for me, that closes the discussion as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As for examples, here is maybe one: [3] - is this worth discussing, or should the move simply be reverted? --Francis Schonken 08:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: according to the Gutenberg text, based on the "first folio" of the play, "æ" is used twice (sic: two times) in that print of the Shakespeare play, all other occurences of "Caesar" (including in the play's title) and other words/names that use the "ae" combination are written without the æ ligature. The Gutenberg edition of the play even has an intro by Gutenberg's boss (Michael S. Hart) attempting to explain such spelling inconsistencies ("You will find a lot of these kinds of errors in this text [...]")... So, really I couldn't see why Wikipedia would write "Cæsar" in the page name referring to the title of that Shakespeare play... --Francis Schonken 09:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated proposal above accordingly. --Francis Schonken 09:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NAME

Given the intent and spirit of the guidelines on this page (as I understand them to give precedence to English translations), the current wording for the organization naming conventions appears to be in conflict (where it seems to call for foreign names to be given equal weight with English translations, and to decide which to use simply based on which is most common). I've made a proposal to rectify this. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Organizations (such as political parties) (proposed change) --Serge 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-native languages other than English

For pages related to Malaysia, a number of editors are including several languages (sometimes 5 languages for various reasons). Some of the pages are Kuala Lumpur International Airport Ipoh and Kuching. Is that justifiable? I am in the position that the only relevant languages should be included at a page and that relevant languages are English name (per WP:UE) and official names. __earth (Talk) 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Médecins Sans Frontières

Interesting, ongoing and relevant discussion at Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières. Andrewa 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny Foreign Squiggles

Ha a new neologism. Thanks to user:Audiovideo creating a redirect from Funny Foreign Squiggle to Diacritic, or by some other trigger, now the first hit in a Google search for the phrase is in the computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com as a phrase for diacritic! --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That kind of intolerance is not really something to be proud of. (It ought not to be capitalised, either, but never mind.) --Stemonitis 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I recall the time and thread when it was created (and used the redirect myself a few times). Actually, it was a mild WP:POINT regarding the debate about... you know what; but it's more likely that it was created by the "pro-diacritic" camp. While, technically, it might fit under CSD R3, I'd prefer to leave the redirect as a funny piece of Wikipedia history. Duja► 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming of organisations

There are problems about naming organisations in non-English speaking countries and this guideline is not helping me. Specifically there is disagreement between people on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting about the naming of Scout and Guide organisations. I am trying to mediate. A simple example is "Asociación de Scouts de Honduras". This title was used for the article until recently, when it was moved to Association of Scouts in Honduras by an English expatriate non-Scout from Hondurus. Is this the best translation or should it be "Association of Scouts of Honduras", or "Scout Association of Honduras", or "Honduras Scout Association", or indeed something else?

There is complete agreement in the Scouting Project for:

For naming articles on Scout organisations/associations, we use an English name if the organisation itself verifiably uses an unique English name in its own documents.

The problem is if this does not apply. In the Honduras case, we have no evidence for a official translation. Honduras however is relatively simple. In other cases we have more than one word that translates to Scout or Guide. In France we have Scouts et Guides de France and Eclaireuses et Eclaireurs de France. These can be translated to "Scouts and Guides of France" and "Guides and Scouts of France" respectively, which are different (perhaps deliberately so), but these translations utterly fail to reflect the way the French understand the terms. Where there are many different Scout organisations, there is the danger that over time, different names for different organisations might be translated to the same English name. Note that Europe is quite different from the US and the UK where there is only one Scout organisation (plus Girl Scouts or Guides). There is also the problem of different words that can really only be translated as "Association" in English.

Some members of the Scout Project conclude that we have to use the correct name in the native language. They also suggest that translating is "original research" and/or that it fails to show respect to other Scout organisations. Other members think that we must translate and use English in every case. The problem arises for all countries in Latin America, most countries in Europe (and for many different organisations) and many elsewhere such as Africa. The world bodies such as World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) and World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) sometimes use an English translation. However they do not always do so consistently and where there are many Scout organisations in a country, they do not deal with them directly but through a federal council. There are also many organisations not affiliated to these bodies.

We are agreed about the wide use of redirects and for all countries we have created links to "Scouting in XXX" as a redirect, or a disambiguation page, or as a small article. These aid the reader to use English to find the article they want, but the problem of the name of the organisation article remains.

Articles have been moved by members and non-members of the Scouting Project when no consensus had been reached. I would welcome suggestions on how to proceed and how to modify this guideline to offer clearer advice. --Bduke 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to amend video games to this statement:

"If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article"

Video games would have a very similar criteria to films and literature. And there are some major issues regarding naming conventions within video games, and specific clarification that official English titles are advised over the original title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the only opposition to this proposal also believes that he is not well-informed in the matter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Support
  1. A Link to the Past (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree, I think in general movies, books, games, etc. could probably be generalized to art medium, media, or something like that. —Mitaphane ?|! 08:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Computer games should use the same naming conventions as the rest of the arts. - hahnchen 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
This is extremely ambiguous and does not list any examples or excpetions or any of that. Please clarify what is meant by most common name - this has proven to be highly controverisal, such as the Brain Training v. Brian Age and other such United States-Ruopean naming wars. Hbdragon88 07:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking fighting over which English name to use, I'm talking setting precedent to use an English title over a non-English title - example, calling the series Mana (series) as opposed to Seiken Densetsu. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That was one unholy 67KB discussion and something I'm not willing to touch at all. But I will withdraw my oppose. Hbdragon88 08:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. There is no consensus regarding many page names within the VG project. Adding this to the naming conventions to circumvent discussion there is really bad form. I'm not even sure this proposal would change anything — "most commonly used" is still entirely subjective. --- RockMFR 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm NOT talking about picking between English titles. I'm only talking about non-English titles. I see no logic in not saying "official English titles should be used instead of other language titles". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    I still disagree with you. We shouldn't be basing page names on what the name of the English version is. If a title is romanized and there are convincing reasons to use that title, we shouldn't discredit it just because it is not the official title of the "English version". --- RockMFR 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    That is NOT what I proposed at all. An unofficial translation could never be considered the "English version". An "official English version" is just that - official. Calling the Animal Crossing movie "Animal Forest" instead of "Dōbutsu no Mori", even though AF is unofficial for the movie is NOT what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that because, for instance, "Mana" is an official title, it should be used instead of "Seiken Densetsu". - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Again, I'm not sure this is the correct venue for rehashing this discussion. The page move was rejected at the article's talk page, so even if this is added to the guideline, it does not trump the consensus that is reached at the article's talk page. Guidelines and policy should be created to fit around existing practices. --- RockMFR 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm NOT using this to get SD moved. If you're going to say oppose, I suggest you answer why this rule applies to literature and films, but not video games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    (reset indent) I'm not sure I agree with this guideline applying to literature/films at all. But, I haven't read much of the discussion regarding the matter, so I'm not well-informed regarding this matter. --- RockMFR 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well, if you don't know, I don't think you should be voting one way or the other. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Note that whereas I agree games should use the same naming criteria as other arts, I do not think the Mana debate is of any relevance here at all. Mana only refers to a subset of the Seiken games in my opinion. Although I think the entire sentence above is too ambiguous and not really followed anyway. For example, Bande à part uses the French name, whereas Breathless (1960 film) uses the English one? - hahnchen 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Mana refers to all games released in English. Obviously, because SD games were never released in the US, they would not feature the franchise title in the first place. But if it's irrelevant, let's not even bring it up. It's an example. Regardless, if you think that games should use the same naming criteria, then you ought to vote keep on the matter. And in your examples, that is a case of editors not following the guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Major dispute.

See, I'm attempting to slowly but surely convert many Japanese names to English names for articles within the spectrum of WP:ANIME (that is, if there IS an accepted English name). However, I am having many problems with people saying that they choose to "go with the JP name because there are multiple English names that they'd have to decide on". Four places where this discussion is occurring are Makoto Kino, Son Goku (Dragon Ball), WP:ANIME, and WP:DB. I would appreciate it if all interested AND uninterested would assist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Page move - Vossstrasse

There is currently a discussion about whether the page at Vossstrasse should be moved to Voßstraße. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Vossstrasse#Page name. --Elonka 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Squamish/Sḵwxwú7mesh

Can someone with some experience in the matter please weigh in on the discussion going on at Talk:Sḵwxwú7mesh#Name: "7" and pronunciation? The Squamish people is what most English speakers call them, but Sḵwxwú7mesh is the proper name in the Squamish language. Rawr 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use a real glottal stop letter (ɂ, U+0242) instead of number seven. --✉ Hello World! 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addendum - Non-Latin disambiguation

I have encountered a number articles, mostly Chinese family names where it is impossible to transliterate into English without losing meaning or context and cause name conflict. For example, this article lists a dozen different surnames that can be transliterated into English as "Li". I proposed adding the following line to the end of the paragraph on Chinese/Pinyin, feel free to edit it:

When name conflict occurs to transliterated titles and cannot be disambiguated by English phrases or Latin alphabet phrases (e.g. homophonic Chinese surnames), the inclusion of minimal amount of non-Latin characters in the article title would be acceptable.

--Voidvector 12:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to; Li (surname) as I see it is filled with little square boxes now. These should not occur in article names. Wouldn't indications of (Mandarin) tone be enough? And the dominant surname Li should in any case be transliterated Li (or, when actually done, Lee) as English actually does. We have no problem disambiguating actually identical British names; we can do the same here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Using mandarin tone marks can solve the problem above, but it cannot solve the problem where their pronunciations are the same, for example 張 and 章 (both are Zhāng). --✉ Hello World! 08:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification

We should spell our article titles as English spells them; and we should make our policy clear. The abuse of using diacritics when English does not is being sheltered under this guideline; we should clarify to:

In all cases where English actually has a predominant spelling of a word or name, we should use it, whether it is the spelling in some other language or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think changing the guideline shortly after opening move requests on two articles with ß in their titles might be seen by some as moving the goalposts. Whatever the motivation, no consensus for this change has been achieved, despite the claim in your edit summary. Any change that it might introduce (and it's not immediately clear what the consequences would be) would seem to be negative, as far as I can see. --Stemonitis 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I opened one. The present text is
If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.
This is incoherent, since it implied that the most common English spelling must be anglicized; and it is, while equally decisive as the proposed text (Å and A are different letters, like some examples currently under discussion), not as clear. It gives comfort to disruptive and radical nationalists, of whom I have had enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, one, not two, although you are participating in the second. I am confused by your adding {{disputed}} to the current text ("only use the native spelling if…"). Do you really dispute this? That would seem to indicate that you think the native spelling should be used in other circumstances, too, which would seem unlikely. I don't believe that there is any dispute about this text, but only about your proposed extension to it, which is not on the page marked as disputed. This section of the guideline is all about cases where a topic has different names in different languages (and that we should use the English name when there is one). Trying to extend it to cover accented characters and the like is slightly dihonest. It would be better to openly suggest that accented characters should be avoided. That has been suggested before, of course, and was rejected. Most importantly, if the change in the guidelines is only to combat a group with one point of view, then the change is itself a violation of WP:NPOV and probably WP:POINT. Guidelines should not be changed merely because one group of editors has "had enough" of another. If there is no agreement, then we should neither claim that there is, nor try to enforce one point of view. There is genuine disagreement here, from different people all acting in good faith. --Stemonitis 17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Yes, this seems unclear. How about
If the most common English spelling is more than merely a transliteration of the native spelling, (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.
This would clarify that this sentence would not apply to Åmål vs. Amal (the case I guess you are referring to). Since it is already stated that the title must be in the Latin alphabet it is clear that transliteration in this sentence only refers to transliteration of a character for the Latin alphabet to another character from that alphabet. Stefán 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Stremonitis confuses me with those who want to change policy in one direction, as Stefán does in the other; I want to clarify what this sentence already says. I support Besançon and Göttingen, but I see no support here for Stefán's qualification. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form; use Vienna, not Wien. This follows the fundamental principle of our naming conventions: don't surprise the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This shows the context the paragraph came in. Then the context of the phrase different letters makes it clear that Å and A are not to be considered different letters in the context of the paragraph. If you didn't like my previous proposal, I can instead propose that we reinsert the first paragraph of the linked-to edit. Stefán 18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dig into the history a little more and you can see that the paragraph I was pointing out got moved down (and rephrase slightly) and now corresponds to the first paragraph of the Disputed issues section. So my qualification (which you saw no support for) is actually already in the text. Stefán 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Implications in the edit history are a different matter; since no one sees them, only the actual wording has consensus. Since Curps' text no longer stands, I doubt it has consensus either. But I am prepared to add a counterexample, to discountenance the "no diacritics" crowd too: Use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form: Use Edvard Beneš, not Benes, but Vienna, not Wien. If you would prefer an Icelandic politician, supply a name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the disputed paragraph altogether. The Wien vs. Vienna example is no better than the Christopher Columbus and Venice examples which appear in the next paragraph. Stefán 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We should at least add Beneš; and much of the following paragraph is redudant too; a blanket endorsement of Pinyin, even for articles about 1840, may have been unwise, see Talk:Treaty of Nanking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed about Pinyin but I think we should keep the second paragraph in some form. Stefán 21:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of Spanish or French. Without Vienna, this could be construed as forbidding Vienna or Ushant, which are clear English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We should mention examples of languages that use the Latin alphabet and examples of languages which don't. How mentioning Spanish and French has any effect on Vienna vs. Wien is beyond me. Stefán 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there are editors perfectly capable of claiming we don't need to transliterate Wien; "it will be educational for our readers". <sigh> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we point out the Venice example to them. If you think the Venice example is somehow worse then the Vienna example then explain why and we can swap them, or even include both. Stefán 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Dynamo Kyiv#Requested move about the correct name to use. This has degenerated into an argument about the validity and relevance of this guideline in relation to football articles like this. Any comments welcome. Woodym555 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing section

This article needs to have a "Specific exceptions" section with a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions which goes into many details about exceptions to the general rule to "Use English". 199.125.109.26 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Languages of the Nordic countries

It is outrageous if the Å, Ä, Ö.. letters of Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, Danish etc. are considered only "accented" versions of the actual letters. Please see articles of Swedish alphabet, Finnish alphabet. They are completely different letters, not accented letters. Then, if someone calls Kimi Räikkönen "Raikkonen", principally it would be same as calling Lewis Hamilton "Hemiltan".

Perhaps Swedish provides the best example, if a word has both Å and Ä, both would be rendered as A. This is utterly wrong, Ä presents "e" and Å "o". Completely different letters they are, not accented.

I am surprised this discussion is still going on. Let's use real names, not misspellings. We have redirects and Unicode for a reason. --Pudeo⺮ 09:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The same problem occurs in Vietnamese too, as d and đ are two different letters. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese), the consensus has not been reached yet. -✉ Hello World! 16:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Archive_5&oldid=1137426332"