Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages/Renaming poll

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move as outlined. -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

message: *Abstain Support - I initially abstained because I just wanted to get a procedure rolling.  Looking at the first few comment, I support the rename.  As with other editor, I only want this where ambiguity exists in the name: e.g. for "Python" but not for "Perl".  Also, something like "Python programming language" would still redirect to "Python (programming language)" under the proposal, so existing links would not break. LotLE×talk 22:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original proposal seems pretty wacko to me, and I don't see any evidence of a consensus.  As I understand it, this current section is not a "straw poll", but a genuine attempt to determine whether or not to move the C article to a new name, independently of whether that wacko proposal is accepted. — DAGwyn 09:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In what way is "C programming language" misleading?  I can't think of a more natural title for such an article. — DAGwyn 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: In order to reduce clutter in the voting section, i've deicded to respond to DNewhall's vote here.  If you're afraid of the amount of work it would take to move the articles, I can move most of them and i'm sure there are other editors willing to take up the task.  Also, most books about programming languages simply have the title or common name of the programming language as the title of the book -- the Wrox series uses "Professional PHP" or "professional Java", not "professional PHP programming language" or "professional Java programming langauge".  Many of the books I have also have the sorting information as "Computers -- Programming languages -- X," where X is the programming language.  atanamir 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue is not that I'm afraid of the work but that it'll be a lot of work with next to no perceived benefit. Both "Euphoria programming language" and "Euphoria (programming language)" go to the same page and I (and others apparently) fail to see how that is an improvement over the current convention. The text is exactly the same, you're just adding parentheses. No one is going to get confused about the lack of parentheses (also remember that the names with parentheses already have redirects in place). Is "<name> (programming language)" a more correct title for the article? Arguably. Is it worth the effort of moving all the pages over from their perfectly understandable title to a title that already has a redirect in place for it? No. - DNewhall 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand the point of stylistic consistency on Wikipedia.  Any one article in isolation would be fine under either convention; in fact, if the project was only the one article on, e.g. "C programming language" there would be no contrast with all the other uses of parens for disambiguation.  But if WP (or some subset) was prepared for print or other syndication, having relatively consistent stylistic choices helps a lot (article naming is, of course, just one small issue among many others, of course).  The work involved in a rename would, obviously, be a tiny fraction of the work involved in discussing the question, so that is "vanishingly insignificant". LotLE×talk 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to C, we need to clear and distinct names for the articles on the programming language article and for the book. C (programming language) and The C Programming Language (book) are those two names. They are unambiguous and (or is that because?) they conform with the Wikipedia standard. Anything else should be a redirect to one or disambig page to both. 'C programming language' should redirect to the language and 'C Programming Language' to the book or a disambig page. The existence of a book called 'The C Programming Language' is actually an argument in Support. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  12:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... Appending to own comment ... It's never referred to directly as 'C programming language'. It's always 'C' or 'the C programming language. Note the ' the '. The latter is of the form 'the X Y' where X is the name and Y is the type of object. 'the X Y' (or even 'X Y') is not a new name for the object, simply a way to refer to X where there may be some ambiguity. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to DNewhall's comment

message: Imagine if you have a set of objects which all fall under the same category -- let's say they're all different types of Widgets.  The types are Alboo, Kabloo, Hello, Wawoob, Baboon, Choogoo, Chimpanzee, etc.  Because some will cause ambiguity -- Hello, Baboon, and Chimpanzee -- they need to be disambiguated.  However, since the common name (in this case, the real name) is "Hello," "Baboon," and "Chimpanzee," wikipedia has an established precedent of using parentheses.  Thus, the unique widgets, Alboo, Kabloo, Wawoob, Coogoo, can have articles simply at the name itself; but the ambiguous names should have articles at Hello (widget), Baboon (widget), and Chimpanzee (widget).  Thus, the  article titles will be uniform in that they are all "at" the name itself, but with a disambiguator on several of them.  This is easier than making all of the articles at Alboo widget, Kabloo widget, Hello widget, etc.  Also, it allows for the pipe trick, so links can easily  be made with  --> Hello. atanamir 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repsonse to Deco's comment