Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 6

message: Articles about these are named "Russian [or Soviet] submarine" and then the number/name of the vessel. Why don't we just call them "RFS" (Russian Federation Ship) and "USSRS"? Because that's the way American and British submarines (and ships) are called. kallemax 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian and Soviet submarines 

message: How to name school articles, specifically how to qualify them with their city and province/state name, is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Schools, where there's a straw poll on.  --rob 07:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  School article naming convention: commas versus parenthesis 

message: 
User:Zondor/Naming conventions, now moved to template:Naming conventions (Zondor's proposal), used as template (see right), removed from guideline page.
Wouldn't this need a little more discussion, prior to implementation? If it were better in line with wikipedia:usability (for instance, not so confusing about the several "people" NC guidelines, etc...), this  might even be a good idea, but of course not on a user talk page, a bit shorter, etc...
--Francis Schonken 08:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zondor's template 

message: Any objections to archiving this talk page? It's getting far too long. Radiant_>|< 14:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving everything older than 1st of November to /archive5. Give me a minute. --Francis Schonken 15:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, finished. --Francis Schonken 15:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: :Propose adding to the policy to not start articles with non-alphanumeric characters used for emphasis only e.g. "Book of Trifles".  Many of these articles have been updated to be redirects to the same title with out empasis symbols, ", in this case.  These articles when used as acutal articles are hard to search for and index for browsing.  A possible exception would be for an article about a quotation, but would like to hear more feedback on those implications first.  If adopted, this change would make many of the redirect only pages immediate canidates for speedy deletion.
Xaosflux 05:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See User:Xaosflux/Sandbox for exact proposal, please comment here or there if you have thaughts on this. Xaosflux 06:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: With no objections I've added this to the Policy Page, please discuss removal here before removing Xaosflux 01:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "..." articles.

message: :Topic moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)#Years in titles, revisited again
Finally I started a new proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), with a broader scope than only "years" - please have a look, it is quite different from the "years in titles" proposal --Francis Schonken 12:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years in titles, revisited again 

message: There is currently a new proposal for a naming convention for articles about countries: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (countries). --bainer (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country naming convention 

message: A thousand apologies if this is the wrong place for this....but what are the naming conventions for WikiProjects?  That is, if I want to make a WikiProject on salt and pepper shakers, would this be WikiProject:Salt and Pepper Shakers, or WikiProject:Salt and pepper shakers?
Thanks, PKirlin 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, WikiProjects are completely internal so even if there are specific guidelines for WikiProjects (and I can't find any) I don't think anyone will be too worked up about them (i.e. relax).  Lacking specific guidelines, I'd say general naming conventions should apply, so according to Wikipedia:WikiProject the name should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Salt and pepper shakers.  This convention is not consistently followed by existing WikiProjects; note, in particular, that the "P" in WikiProject is sometimes not capitalized.  Special:Allpages can be used to view all existing names, specifically see WikiProjects and Wikiprojects. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject naming

message: A naming convention proposal for ethnic groups by country categories has been made at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Ethnic groups by country categories. Kurieeto 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic groups by country categories 

message: There are many articles about countries' relations, but with great differences between their titles:
*Concerning the title format: should we use Sino-Japanese relations or Foreign relations between Japan and China
*Concerning the name of the countries: should we use adjectives (Japanese-Korean relations) or nouns (Japan-United States relations)? Which country name (eg: for the United states is it American (Franco-American relations), US (U.S.-Iran relations) or United States (United States-Venezuela relations)?)
*Concerning the order of the countries: there's no particular scheme about which country is named first.
The only stable format that is used is with relations with the United Nations (see :Category:United Nations relations)
Anyway there should be a naming convention about these kind of articles. CG 17:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Countries' relations 

message: I have put a proposal for the Naming convention into the Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies. Despite a weird name it is dealing with a persistent problem, arising then editing biographies of people from the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. I think the problem is universal, but I would especially like to see the feedback from the people of different cultural backgrounds. abakharev 02:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethno-cultural labels in biographies 

message: It might be over-engineered to have a separate NC page for this, but as a number of separated renaming debates have sprung up over roads/highways/routes, some degree of centralised discussion might be useful.  Specifically, there's much inconsistency over "highways" vs. "routes" in the US (from state to state, and permanent to stub category, etc), and capitalisation;  e.g. :Category:California County Route stubs vs :Category:Washington state highway stubs, etc, etc.  This'd potentially affect both articles (e.g., List of California State Routes), as well as categories, so a single discussion at, say, CFD isn't ideal.  Alai 09:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention for roads? 

message: Hello!  I'm in the process of enhancing many of the articles and ancillaries specifically dealing with continents and their subregions; I'm finding much of the content, definitions, or organisation lacking and often POV.  This includes the addition of basic data tables for countries in the six (popularly-known) populated continents/regions in their respective articles (see here for Europe, for example).  To preclude any ambiguity, countries are being categorised according to UN regional classifications; in instances of transcontinental territories, I am adding notes and indicating rationale to ensure the same data for such regions (e.g., Russia) is not duplicated.
As well, to rectify the apparent imbalance in the categorising of various continents and subregions in the 'Regions' template (e.g., Europe/Asia, yet Americas), I've reorganised it to consolidate Europe and Asia into Eurasia.  Another way to do this is to separate out as follows:
*Americas: North America...; South America... 
*Eurasia: Asia...; Europe... 
or to separately list the four.  I'm fine with either or, but a melange of the two doesn't make sense.  Thoughts?  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong feelings here, except that user convenience, and the principle of least surprise, is at least as important as consistency (of course, in an ideal world, the two should go together...). I suspect that not many people will be looking for Eurasia or interested in its contents compared to those interested in Europe or Asia. Also, my main area of interest is the Middle East, and I would deplore its disappearance! Palmiro | Talk 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Well, you can flip that on its head: most people on this side of the pond associate America with the USA and clearly distinguish between North and South America.  I found the prior setup/template rather surprising, inconvenient, and unbalanced, so it was begging for a shake-up; I believe it's now fine.  I kept the Eurasia and America/s because some of the regions are in both: e.g., Eastern Europe, Caribbean by some defs.  I do not advocate for the removal of the main areas specified (like the Middle East), only for it to be ... tidier and accurately relay information. :) Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 23:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Continent]]s, [[subregion]]s, and [[Template:Region]] 

message: Should all eponymous laws be lowercase or uppercase, or does it vary? -- Kjkolb 08:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eponymous laws

message: The North and South called many of the battles of the American Civil War by different names (see Naming the American Civil War).  Some sort of guideline should be established to determine the proper names for pages on these battles.  I propose some combination of the following criteria, in order of precedence: 
#The National Parks Service's prefered name
#Most common name in contemporary history writing
#Local name for the battle
#The preference of the victor in the particular battle--Bkwillwm 05:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War Battles 

message: Perhaps I'm missing it on the project page but are nouns preferred over adverbs? For example, is transpositional equivalency okay or should it be transpositional equivalence? Hyacinth 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that neither equivalency nor equivalence is an adverb; they're both nouns. It's probably best to go with the phrase that's most common. If that can't be determined, my personal preference would be to go with the shorter term: equivalence. Indefatigable 21:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adverbs

message: This is mentioned on wikipedia:naming conventions for some time, and was mentioned on other pages, like wikipedia:current surveys, before. In the mean while several suggestions were incorporated, and others answered at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates).
So, proposing the updated Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), to be accepted as guideline  in a week or so - unless there are still fundamental alterations required.
Note that this guideline proposal absorbs wikipedia:naming conventions (years in titles) (which would become a redirect). Also this is about the last wikipedia:naming conventions topic that doesn't have a "naming conventions" guideline yet, separate from the more general MoS, which doesn't discuss many "page naming" specifics. --Francis Schonken 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-proposing [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)]]