Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 8

message: I could not find any naming convention policy that clarifies whether a product article should always be named after the official name of the product the commonly that makes it uses or the common name for the product when they differ.  Should a company's official name for a product take place over an common but unofficial name?  --Cab88 16:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official company product names 

message: In response to several reverted renames over the past day or so (, , ), I've added part of this proposal to the guidelines. Please revert if the edit was in error. --Muchness 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial addition

message: I propose to discourage really long article titles. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#Article title length. Thanks, Melchoir 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title length 

message: There has been a recent proposal for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan). Please provide comments at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan). - Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed Naming conventions (Tibetan)

message: It is very confusing when there are two pages that are on different topics, but share the same title except for capitalization. Unless there is objection I will add the following paragraph after the convention section of 1.1: 
It is possible to create two pages that have the same name but different capitalization. This is confusing to readers and should be avoided (use the disambiguation mechanisms instead). Example: use "Streets of London (song)" and "Streets of London (game)" instead of "Streets of London" and "Streets Of London".
Objections? Support? -- cmh 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: It is possible to create two pages that have the same name but different capitalization. If the topics are not easily distinguished by their capitalization the disambiguation mechanisms should be used instead. Examples: While acronyms like Wasp and WASP are clear, use "Streets of London (song)" and "Streets of London (game)" instead of "Streets of London" and "Streets Of London".
-- cmh 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2

message: The list I posted was stale from the start (see methodology on the list page) and will only get less useful over time as it is not dynamic. Regardless of what happens to the proposal, I think something has to be done about those entries that are undeniably confusing, or erroneous copies of one capitalization's page instead of redirects. One possibility would be to start a wikiproject to look into them. Since you have all been considering this issue, I would like your feedback on this idea... do you think such a wikiproject would work? If so, are you interested? I am working on a wikiproject page, but don't want to go too much further if it will just fall flat. -- cmh 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fate of List: A WikiProject?

message: I posted a question over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), regarding use of local (foreign) names of Universities but haven't gotten much of a response. This has been a lingering issue since about 2004. I personally think that all/most of the universities should be renamed using the translated English title with the exception of some of the public French and Quebec universities where French usage is more common.  I would appreciate any other opinions about the issue.  Please reply at the  
original discussion page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local or English names for universities 

message: i liked the discussion for moving from calling this page DJ Danger Mouse to Danger Mouse. people please note. Extremeweb 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danger Mouse 

message: Perhaps some of you could give the questions posed there a look and share any thoughts you might have, thanks. Шизомби 22:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#film series questions]]

message: Per Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Help with Links there is now at least one article with a curly quote in its name.  Not suprprisingly, this has confused an editor (the creator of the article, no less).  I looked around a bit and didn't find a guideline about this (there is a thread at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)#“Curly” apostrophes).  I suspect this will be controversial, but I suggest we add a guideline somewhere that says "use straight quotes in article names".  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Ligulem 07:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curly vs. straight apostrophes 

message: I would like to post a proposal for the format of naming Muslim clergy. I would like to either create a separate page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy), or post it here. My proposal is that Muslim clergy such as Ayatollahs go with their titles, just like Western clergy. For ayatollahs use the format (Grand) Ayatollah {name} {surname}. For example use Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and not Ali al-Sistani, and Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi and not Mohammad Yazdi. Gryffindor 21:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't mean to sound combative, but what is the purpose of this? Are there a lot of cases where ambiguity would exist without adding the title? You say "just like Western clergy", but my perusal of :Category:Bishops (or, rather, subcategories of it) indicates that very few bishops have "bishop" in the title of their articles. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it's ok for Cardinals to have their name, but not ayatollahs? I am not saying every Islamic clergy should be with their titles, but the highest ones, like in the Christian cases. Gryffindor 13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't been aware of that situation before now, but, no, I don't think it's okay (although I've been inconsistent on the matter in the past). I don't know how it has been justified thus far. I'm not aware of any accepted principle by which Wikipedia would use titles for people especially if they are high-ranking.  [added:] Okay, I have since located and read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy). The argument there seems to be that "Cardinal" is not a title but becomes part of the cardinal's name. I don't know whether I find this entirely convincing, but it is, in any case, not an argument in favour of including a title. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the current pope before he became pope was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, he was referred to in the press by his partial title Cardinal Ratzinger, and when he became pope he changed his name to Pope Benedict XVI.  The title given to Joseph Ratzinger as Cardinal was Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, the name was changed to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.  Ayatollah is different from Roman Catholic religious tradition, both in how the rank is confered and in its meaning, and Shi'a Islam differs from Roman Catholicism.  Ayatollah is a title given out of respect to an individual, it's not a name change, but an addition that shows the degree of learning and the respect of the community for that learning.  There are probably religious experts who can clarify all of this.  KP Botany 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayatollah naming 

message: The articles about missiles and unguided rockets badly need a naming convention, especially the Russian ones. - Dammit 14:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets)]] proposal 

message: *"It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention."
It goes without saying that the naming conventions are conventions. Does it deserve a whole paragraph? Hyacinth 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth revising this to explain why a page named conventions containing guidelines is marked policy.  -- Rick Block (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Conventions''

message: It says to capitalize everything but prepositions and conjunctions.  Is 'with' either of those?  Because my instinct says that Fall Out Boy's Evening Out with Your Girl should be Fall Out Boy's Evening Out With Your Girl. Am I right? And while I'm at it, what about 'for,' 'to/from,' 'in/out,' 'or,' 'on/under/over,' and 'to?' —Akrabbimtalk 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: with is a preposition, so the title is correct. The others should generally be lower case too, unless they're being used adverbially. wiktionary: is very useful. Flowerparty☀ 11:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems to be correct, too (see  or ). I think that the guideline should be expanded to reflect this. Jogers (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'With' in album titles 

message: How does one promote from proposed to other specific conventions?  Williamborg 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does one promote from proposed to other specific  conventions  

message: The naming conventions need to address whether a patronymic is used in titling articles after Russian-born individuals. Some sort of standard needs to exist for reference. Fearwig 20:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian patronymic 

message: Shouldn't "through" be capitalized? It is a preposition but all the capitalization guidelines I found on the Internet say that prepositions should be capitalized when longer than few letters (most commonly 4 or 5). Jogers (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album titles and band names

message: According to this Wikipedia search, people have been disambiguating page titles by adding the word 'onomastics.'  Would anyone agree with me that it would be much clearer to use 'name' instead? --Smack (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also saw articles with etymology (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=etymology&fulltext=Search) or terminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=terminology&fulltext=Search) between brackets and was wondering as well: what is the standard? Brz7 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's different.  There's nothing wrong with discussing the etymology of a term or the terminology of a field, and those two words are pretty common.  'Onomastics,' though, had me scrambling to look up the definition as soon as I saw it. --Smack (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Onomastics' in page titles 

message: Interested editors are invited to participate in:  a poll on whether or not to use diacritics in the titles of Polish monarchs. --Elonka 18:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related poll 

message: A long and protracted discussion over whether the term "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" is to be preferred in the titles of articles dealing with the institution headed by the Bishop of Rome has reached something of an impasse.  I, for one, am willing to be guided by the consensus of editors here.  The term "Catholic Church" is used to refer to a single institution, but is also used to refer to churches that self-identify as component Communions thereof.  The naming conventions appear ambiguous in this regard, since the term is descriptive.  If you have the time and patience to follow the discussions, they can be found at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive3 and Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name.  Fishhead64 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Catholic Church versus Catholic Church

message: # First of all, near-elimination of POV in page titles. Now you can't name some town in the alphabet you like just because you wish it was occupied by another country; you have to put real name of this town in the title.
# Significant decrease of time wasted on moves and title quarrels.
# One and common convention decreases number of rules, eliminates contrary ones, and removes necessity to create new and new romanization conventions for languages; the fewer rules the better.
And remember - English Wikipedia is the most developed Wikipedia of all, it is used and visited by people from all over the world. 
Feel free to comment. I hope we can work out something more general than just separate naming conventions for proper names of every single language :). --Monk 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages of this proposal 

message: Hello, just noticed that WHEELS is in your "confusing" list, but it's getting changed to a disambig page, so maybe you will want to take it off. Cheers. lensovet 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WHEELS]]