Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 5

message: What's better: "History of X" or "Xsh history"? This is a dilemma that has plagued Wikipedians since the dawn of time. A new naming convention has been proposed to deal with this issue. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) for details. - Pioneer-12 12:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History of X" vs "Xsh history" 

message: #In the "Links w/in Wikipedia Name-space" section of this talk page there are a lot of naming convention links listed. Why have they not been added to the wikipedia:naming conventions page ?
#In the "Conventions under consideration" section there are some topics listed. For how long will they be under consideration, can't that section be merged totally with section 2 - "Other specific conventions". I don't see any major discussions happening on those topics anyway. Jay 05:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactivity ? 

message: This article gets grotesquely spaced-out on my browser by all the superscripted 'nd's and 'th's in the main text. I can't find style for this issue, but I hope it can be discouraged. Any advice? Adhib
:I don't see any need for superscripts. Maurreen 04:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need either.  However, there's no need to write out the number either, so plain "82nd" will suffice.  Is there a way to change this, or is this the way the article came out? SujinYH 01:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: nd's, st's, th's

message: Article says asterix (*) and ampersand (&) should not be used in a page title, but makes no mention of hash (#) and angle brackets (> and <). 
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) in its excluded characters list makes no mention of * or &, and says #, > and < cannot be used. 
Who is right ? Jay 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please excuse the gratuitous pedantry, but one of the symbols you speak of is called an 'asterisk', not an 'asterix'.  --Smack 20:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Forbidden characters in page titles

message: I moved Hardware random number generator to Hardware random-number generator, because the former usage is grammatically improper.  It was then promptly moved back by User:Matt Crypto, who cited a Google test.  Is there a policy on this kind of predominant yet ungrammatical usage?  --Smack 20:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about using the hyphen. In my view, people sometimes misuse Google. Maurreen 05:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have access to my books & papers at the moment, but have a look at Google Scholar, which indexes academic publications. Again, there is a strong trend not to include a hyphen: . — Matt Crypto 10:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, the meaning that is meant is that it is a random "generator of numbers", rather than a generator of "random numbers" (using quotes to disambiguate). Contrast with pseudorandom number generator. It is the generators that are random or pseudorandom, not the numbers. For example, 3 isn't a random number, but the act of rolling a dice is a random number generator. So you'd probably want to hyphenate it "hardware random number-generator", if anything.
I think you are wrong. The number is random. If I have a bunch of number generator cards that fit in the card slot on my computer and I pick one at random then I have selected a random number generator.--Gbleem 23:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: However, I do think we should follow the usage conventions of the academic literature. Most grammar rules have exceptions. — Matt Crypto 22:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to our article on randomness, I gather that randomness is a property of a collection of numbers. --Smack 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In German we say "Zufallszahl" (=Randomnumber), so I guess randomness is a property as Smack said. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenated multiple modifiers 

message: Hi all -- I have a new article to write, based on all the research I just had to do on Diabetes Mellitus in Cats and Dogs.  (Yes I now have a diabetic cat, and there's a lot out there on the topic, but nothing on Wikipedia.) It's bigger than a section in the "Diabetes mellitus" article should be.
But what to call it?
*Canine and Feline Diabetes
*Diabetes (canine)
*Diabetes (feline)
*Diabetes (canine and feline)
*Diabetes in Dogs and Cats
*... etc?
I feel like the article would work best as a single article, as most of the
information about dogs and cats is either common to both or has important contrasts
between them.  But the names that combine the articles just don't look very
Wikipedia-like to me.
So should I write the article and leave the naming to a big discussion later?
Thanks in advance,
Steve   
--Steverapaport 00:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for "*Diabetes in cats and dogs". Just sounds better to me. Maurreen 05:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Diabetes in cats and dogs it shall be.  Thanks!  --Steverapaport 15:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I vote for putting in redirects, especially from the first two names.  I'll go ahead and link to them all to make that easier.  I've even got a few more: Feline Diabetes, Canine Diabetes, Diabetes in dogs, Diabetes in cats.--Joel 05:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help naming Feline/Canine Diabetes article please 

message: A user, The Tom, has been changing the names of a number of articles and I am unsure whether or not I agree with his rationale.  Mainly, he has been changing the name of political organizations which do not indiciate their jurisdiction in their official title.  eg.  He has changed the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia).
I am torn here as, to my knowledge, "Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform" is only used in British Columbia, however it could very easily be used elsewhere.  So, my question is, should the article be called Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform or Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)?  See The Tom's edit history to find other examples of articles he has renamed in a similar fashion.
Also, please not, I do not mean the above as an attack on The Tom, I am just wondering whether this is the right way to go or not -- I am not sure.  -- Jord 14:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes seem needless to me. Maurreen 15:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Apologies.  In the case of the Citizens Assembly, I was clearing the ground for an article on the similarly-titled organization about to be set up in Ontario.   -The Tom 18:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's always quite so clear-cut. Especially with personal names, there may be other links to Joe Bloggs which are not the same as the one with the written article. Some judgement is required as to the relative notability of the various Joe Bloggs (if such an assessment is possible). In such a situation, if the Joe Bloggs with a written article is obviously more notable (or even if it is not clear, but it appears unlikely that the other Joe Bloggs will have an article written about them anytime soon), then I'd add a  template to the top of the existing article and try to populate Joe Bloggs (disambiguation) with whatever basic information might be available about the others. If the existing Joe Bloggs article is only a stub, or if it is obvious that other Joe Bloggs are likely to be of comparable notability and there is a good chance there there would be an article created about them, then I'd be inclined to move the existing Joe Bloggs article to a disambiguated title and turn the Joe Bloggs page into a disambiguation page. Suppose for example, the existing Joe Bloggs article is a stubby entry about some a not terribly illustrious post-Civil War politician. And I happen to come to the link by clicking on a Joe Bloggs link for a not particularly notable 18th century British politician. And looking at What Links Here might reveal yet another Joe Bloggs, perhaps a 20th century Australian politician of no great significance. In such a case, I'd probably move the existing Joe Bloggs article to something like Joe Bloggs (American politician) and turn Joe Bloggs into a disambiguation page (and also change links in the articles to link to something link Joe Bloggs (British politician) and Joe Bloggs (Australian politician). 02:04, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) use google to find other things with that name. than make a dab page. This avoids future work. You may have 50 articles linking to Joe Bloggs and nobody knows which Joe Blogg they refer to. It's a mess to fix this later and unecessary. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous but seemingly unique names 

message: Hi all. I am proposing to change the name of the category to "Insurers" and hence :Insurance companies of the United Kingdom to :Insurers of the United Kingdom, etc.. The reasons are (1) it's shorter; (2) it takes care of non-company insurers, such as partnerships or other structures, e.g., Lloyd's.  --JuntungWu 12:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea. Insurers of the United Kingdom sounds like those who insure the United Kingdom, not insurers who are in or insure risks in the United Kingdom. Also, apart from Lloyd's all insurers must be in corporate form (usually companies or friendly societies), so I'm not sure what the partnership reference is, jguk 13:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Oppose as per jguk CalJW 22:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Insurance companies]] 

message: Sorry if this is addressed somewhere else, I haven't been able to find any guidelines for it. If you're creating a page about a word which can have 
different definitions, how do you decide which definition to use? For example, "vivisection" means experimenting on animals by cutting them in some dictionaries, but any kind of animal experimentin others. Should the "vivisection" page simply talk about cutting animals, or should it talk about all animal experiments? Should "vivisection" and "animal experiments" be seperate pages, or should they be merged?
:I think handling differences in definitions depends on the situation, such as how much information Wikipedia has on each definition and how contentious different defintions are. But they should at least generally link to each other.
:In this case, I think they should be different articles. Maurreen 12:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should go by the primary definition listed in Wiktionary, if there is one present. Miroku Sanna 12:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the definition of a word is disputed 

message: I have found it misleading that Wikpedia: pages relating to conventions for the names of pages are entitled "Naming conventions".  It would be less ambiguous to call them "Page-naming conventions".  The ambiguity arises in the case of proper names.  For example, the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) does not make clear that it refers to the conventions for the title of the page describing a city, rather than conventions for referring to the city in the body of other articles.  On which note, where are the latter conventions to be found? Joestynes 04:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Naming Conventions" naming convention

message: "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."
In a case where a clear majority cannot be seen, what kind of sources should be used? How is one to measure this "majority"? Also, in a case a name that was prevalent is changed "officially", but obviously google hits or other searches return more (old) entries with previous names, what can be done to reduce ambiguity? The case especially became important with the case of the city "Calcutta", which was renamed (in English) to "Kolkata" by the Government of the West Bengal. A fairly heated dicussion is going on at the discussion page. -- Urnonav 06:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity measure

message: The following discussion was originally from Wikipedia:Requested moves and has been brought here for further input.
===Proposed moves===
*The Gambia → Gambia
*The Netherlands → Netherlands
*The Netherlands (disambiguation) → Netherlands (disambiguation)
*:Category:Elections in Gambia → :Category:Elections in Gambia
*Coat of Arms of Bahamas → Coat of Arms of the Bahamas
*List of political parties in Gambia → List of political parties in the Gambia
*:Category:Elections in Netherlands Antilles → :Category:Elections in the Netherlands Antilles
*:Category:Geography of Solomon Islands → :Category:Geography of the Solomon Islands
*:Category:Elections in Bahamas → :Category:Elections in the Bahamas
*List of political parties in Marshall Islands → List of political parties in the Marshall Islands
*List of hospitals in Philippines → List of hospitals in the Philippines
===Discussion from WP:RM===
and XXX of/in [Name of Country] → XXX of/in the [Name of Country]
Note: this request is only applicable to names of countries and territories that need the "the" article, such as the Gambia, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom.
There was a debate over the title of the article Netherlands, and the article was moved to The Netherlands. Nevertheless, it has been a general rule that the articles "the" are left out for articles titled "[Name of Country]", but to keep them for articles titled "XXX of the [Name of Country]", except the Gambia (see Talk:The Gambia). This request is for the consistence of titles.  — Instantnood 01:12 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
Relevant conventions: Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beining of name). — Instantnood 03:53 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
* As I stated on RM's talk page, I'm growing greatly concerned with the recent precedent of recommending large blocks of pages.  In order to keep the moves controllable and accountable, and to give the contributors a scale of how comprehensive this requested move is, would you kindly provide a list of how many (and which) pages will be affected by this move?  —ExplorerCDT 02:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [Name of Country] → [Name of Country] 

message: and XXX of/in [Name of Country] → XXX of/in the [Name of Country]
Note: this request is only applicable to names of countries and territories that need the "the" article, such as the Gambia, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom.
There was a debate over the title of the article Netherlands, and the article was moved to The Netherlands. Nevertheless, it has been a general rule that the articles "the" are left out for articles titled "[Name of Country]", but to keep them for articles titled "XXX of the [Name of Country]", except the Gambia (see Talk:The Gambia). This request is for the consistence of titles.  — Instantnood 01:12 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
Relevant conventions: Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beining of name). — Instantnood 03:53 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
* As I stated on RM's talk page, I'm growing greatly concerned with the recent precedent of recommending large blocks of pages.  In order to keep the moves controllable and accountable, and to give the contributors a scale of how comprehensive this requested move is, would you kindly provide a list of how many (and which) pages will be affected by this move?  —ExplorerCDT 02:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion from WP:RM

message: I find an irritating trend of pages on flagship state universities being at locations like Indiana University Bloomington.  Whenever somebody says they went to the University of Michigan, or the University of Wisconsin, or the University of Minnesota, or the University of Maryland, they mean they went to the main campus.  This is the principal use of these terms, and the most commonly used name, not using the whole name.  For instance, in the NCAA tournament, the University of Wisconsin-Madison is just "Wisconsin," while the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is "Wisconsin-Milwaukee".  I can think of a couple of exceptions - SUNY doesn't really have a flagship campus, and although Berkeley is the main campus, and it is, in sports, referred to as California, it is so often referred to as Berkeley, that I can make an exception there.  But I'd say that in pretty much all other cases the flagship school should just be University of Maryland or University of Alabama, rather than including the full name.  Any thoughts? john k 00:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State universities 

message: I have just moved the discussion on what the naming convention should be for these articles to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes) from the talk page of British Rail Class 185. Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British Rail Class XX

message: I noticed that in general newspapers, magazines, etc. seem to be named based on the name on their masthead.  Is there a specific policy about this?  I noticed that some don't follow this convention, however.  I'm moving Baltimore Sun to The Baltimore Sun.  Is that a problem? --jacobolus (t) 04:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least as a rule, the articles should use whatever the publications use. I don't know offhand about this specific example. Maurreen 17:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications 

message: I just stumbled over this problem: How to name clubs, theatres, cinemas,...
Problems:
They have often a non unique name (clubs with the same name exist in different cities). Furthermore, the (non-english) names are often hard to translate and translating such names could be of dubious value they are 'proper' names.
I searched the archives of the different Naming conventions pages but was not successfull.
Propositions:
* NAME (KIND, PLACE)
* NAME CITY (KIND)
* KIND NAME (CITY)
where:
NAME is the name of the organization
KIND is the type of organization: Club, Cinema, Theatre,...
PLACE is the place where it is located (Cityname,...)
Translation policy?
:When disambiguation is needed, I would lean toward "name (place)". Maurreen 17:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clubs and similar organizations 

message: Following a comment by Philip Baird Shearer on my Talk page, I am moving this discussion and straw poll to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29#Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks where apparently there has been previous discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks 

message: I'm working on expanding list of diamond mines and I am not sure about the naming convention.  Should article names for mines be:
*[Name] [Commodity] [Mine] (ex. Anaconda Copper Mine);
*[Name] [commodity] [mine] (ex. Argyle diamond mine);
*[Name] [Mine] (ex. Escondida Mine); or
*[Name] [mine] (ex. Grasberg mine); or
*[Name] (ex. Yanacocha)?
Or maybe some other convention?
:I would vote for either [Name] [commodity] mine or [Name] mine, since I've never heard of Yanacocha and there are likely some mines that share names with cities etc, but also some without the commodity and the word "mine" in their proper names.--Joel 05:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aritcle names for mines 

message: Hey-  Recently User:Lee M moved Jemma Griffiths to Jem (Singer).  I agree with his rationale, that "Jemma Griffiths" goes by the professional name "Jem" and is more widely known by that name (she publishes records and is listed under that name).  Due to the conflict with the existing Jem article about Jem (animated), he chose the "singer" title (there were some issues regarding the redirect, so he used the capitalized word "Singer", which can be easily fixed.  Hoewever.  My concerns, which I voiced on Talk:Jem (Singer) were that the term "singer" does not properly disambiguate Jemma Griffiths from the Jem (animated), who is also a singer-songwriter, fictional though she may be.  As I understand, disambiguation terms are supposed to be the most generic term possible that leaves NO ambiguity with other articles/concepts.  Can anyone suggest proper names for these articles? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:25, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
*My take is that Jem (animated) is fine and unambiguous. In this situation I would expect the article to be at Jem Griffiths with Jemma Griffiths and Jem (singer) to redirects there. I suggest you also mention this at Wikipedia:Request moves. Thryduulf 17:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The preference on Wikipedia is to go for the most commonly-used name, so therefore Jem (singer) would be the more appropriate choice, with a redirect from Jemma Griffiths... as currently exists. As for the confusion with the animated series, I think adding a line of explanation at the top of Jem (singer) similar to the one at the top of Jem (animated) would suffice to explain the distinction. - MykReeve 20:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name for Jem Griffiths 

message: I have no idea what to do with this page: Maj.Gen. A.0. Mitha.  The title is confusing, and should probably be changed.  Is there a specific policy on including titles like "general" in a page title?  There seem to be several pakistan related articles like this (most of which also could use cleanups to conform to better grammar and wiki style.  Anyway, if someone would go ahead and move this page where it should go, that'd be swell. --jacobolus (t) 01:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  odd titles 

message: What would be an appropriate name for the Biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego? An article already exists at Abednego, onto which I have added a bit, but it's not the right place for the article. See Talk:Abednego. -- Tetraminoe 07:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego 

message: I thought there was a policy - or a guideline - to name articles after the most common occurence of the title in Google. This is why, for example, I thought that Polish-Soviet War:3,940 is preffered to Polish-Bolshevik War:745, or World War II:20,700,000 to World War Two:729,000 or Second World War:4,070,000 (did the check just a while ago for another discussion). I can't find this rule though - I'd appreciate if sb could point me to it or tell me I dreamed it up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not really a policy or guideline in its own right, but rather a way of applying others - the best place for an article is generally "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", which implies "the most common". Comparing hit numbers on an index such as Google is simply a means of judging which is in fact the more common, as "evidence" during a discussion - and a somewhat controversial one at that. Wikipedia:Google test has some information on the pros and cons of using this kind of statistic, but basically it should only be used with caution and as part of a more general consideration of the name's merits. - IMSoP 20:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google most common? 

message: What would be the right name for this device: klopotec or bird-scaring rattle or wind-rattle? According to Google, klopotec is the most used term and recognized by a majority of people who know about it, including the majority of English speakers - however, it is not an English name. --Eleassar777 13:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I already moved to klopotec - well received by others. --Eleassar777 09:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Klopotec or bird-scaring rattle

message: Please see :Category:Articles in need of renaming -SV|t 21:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Review / comment

message: "Gamelan gong kebyar is often referred to as kebyar. Article should be at gamelan gong kebyar with a redirect at kebyar. See other types of Indonesian music."
:I moved this here as a convention should apply to more than one article. Hyacinth 20:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesian music

message: Is there a standard accepted way of transliterating modern Greek and Bulgarian names from their original alphabets? Right now it's a mess, for instance:
*Bulgarian ъ is sometimes u, sometimes a,
*Bulgarian ю is sometimes iu, sometimes yu, 
*Bulgarian ц is sometimes ts, sometimes c,
*Bulgarian х is sometimes kh, sometimes h,
*Greek χ is sometimes kh, sometimes ch,
*Greek υ when it is pronounced i is sometimes written y, sometimes i,
*Greek υ when it is pronounced f is sometimes written u, sometimes f,
*Greek σ between two vowels is sometimes written s, sometimes ss,
*Greek ει and οι are sometimes written ei and oi, sometimes i (as they're pronounced).
What I'd like to see is something like Transliteration of Russian into English. Discussion at Talk:Bulgaria and Talk:Greece. Markussep 15:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek and Bulgarian geographic and personal names

message: I'd like to suggest that it be a naming policy that the American usage of "Fall" be replaced by "Autumn". Fall is already redirected to Autumn, which shows some level of pre-eminence given to Autumn.
One Salient Oversight 05:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Autumn and Fall

message: I am sorry if this was discussed earlier or I was supposed to easily find it already ;) but I have the following dilemma: 
If the article name is a music band name in Serbian (can be any other language or any other name, but this is my concern right now) and has more then one word in it, should the capitalization rules used be that of the Serbian language or English? In Serbian, only the first word of the name is capitalized (unless other words are personal names, etc). 
So, for example, band "Električni orgazam" has an article named Elektricni Orgazam with a capital O, though in Serbian that would be incorrect. Should this be Elektricni orgazam instead? 
Any thoughts? --Dejan Čabrilo 07:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Serbian rules apply; cf Académie française (French, and not a band, but same principle). Joestynes 12:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've been following that rule, but I didn't want to change other's work (now I will if I run into it, but it's still no big deal). --Dejan Čabrilo 00:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English band names 

message: :Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
Is this where I ask questions? It says not to, but I can't figure out which is the "best section". My question is about Wikipedia:article naming policy.
If an entertainer changes his name, must the article about them always reflect that change? Specifically, should the David Sutch article be called david sutch or Screaming Lord Sutch (that was his stage name / persona when he was with Screaming Lord Sutch And The Savages.
Oh, and I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, although this might be an example of Wikipedia:illustrating a point. I need help, and I don't know where to go, and I'd like an answer, please. (If this request results in fixing the system, all the better. And I'm not a newbie, either. If I can't find my way around by now, something is seriously bolloxed up here...) Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 15:05 (UTC)
:Beautiful Uncle Ed LOL! I love it! You've taken be bold to a whole new level. Quinobi 9 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
:: Now here's an idea, what about asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? You're right - you ought to know your way around, so why?  And you have clearly not read wikipedia:Naming conventions either.  Admins ought to know policies, such as the one not of creating articles on your unnotable mate. Dunc|☺ 19:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Without knowing much about the specifics, I would say consensus on the individual article would prevail. Maurreen 18:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try clicking on Help? That page is pretty comprehensive. Then click on "Policies and guidelines for contributors" (perhaps that item should be more prominent?), then "Naming conventions", then "Discuss this page". That's how I got here. It's not quick, but it is logical. Shantavira 08:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entertainer name changes

message: I'm a little concerned about articles called, for example, Albatross (song) and Apache (song) since these are not songs ("a short musical composition for the human voice ... featuring lyrics", to quote Wikipedia) but instrumental pieces. But what else to call them? Shantavira 17:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Track" seems to be a reasonable word to use and covers any recording. If it's specifically about the composition though then maybe "Composition" is a better one to use.  — KayEss | talk 09:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Single" is often a useful alternative (as in both these cases). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Songs?

message: It just took me googling to find our standard naming convention for United Kingdom Acts of Parliament (it's at Talk:List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Summary of naming conventions); can I suggest it be added to the list of formal naming conventions here? — OwenBlacker 23:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
: As one of those who worked out our convention, and then wrote it down, I'm happy for it to be made "law". ;-) Seriously, further oversight and criticism would be a Good Thing.
: James F. (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Acts of Parliament 

message: Is Philip Green (author)/Sources a correctly titled page? I thought sources were supposed to be in the actual article and that the slash was only to be used for User pages. If so please fix. Shantavira 09:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub pages?

message: The articles Kiss and Squatting present an interesting decision: should we prefer the noun form or the verb form?  In my opinion, the gerund verb form should take precedence over the noun form, so if there is an option for a verb used as a noun (eg: Kiss), we should prefer the gerund verb.  Hence, Kiss should probably be Kissing.  Scott Ritchie 05:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names that are both nouns and verbs 

message: How does a proposal become a convention? Do we have a vote? Where should I go to receive comments, RfC? The Village Pump? I ask because I want comments on the competing proposals at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities). Thanks. --Golbez 22:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
You might want to see Wikipedia:How to create policy. And yes, I would publicize the proposal at RFC and the Village Pump, also possibly at related pages. Maurreen (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and vote? 

message: I noted there is no procedure for proposing a naming convention listed on the main page.  Does one exist elsewhere or is it an oversight?  I note the speedy renaming procedure states that suggestions for new criteria should be proposed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions.  I've been bold and added that to the main page. Hiding  talk 13:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing a naming convention 

message: I am hoping to generate a naming convention for long lists that are broken up alphabetically.  Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and thank you in advance for any input you might have. -- Reinyday, 14:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for discussion of naming convention for long lists 

message: I'm one of those who think that the "Names and Titles" naming conventions guideline could be written in a format that makes it sound less as an exception to general wikipedia principles on article namingref.
The issue has been discussed recently on severeral talk pages, and there appears to be a group of wikipedians that neither wants to get really involved, neither is particularily fond of the present complications for naming a "lucky-by-birth stiff who had some pretentions to a hereditary right to rule others or had the remotest ancestral connections to such a person"ref
The problem is, these wikipedians have no alternative: either it's the complicated "exception" rule, either it's only the basic rules that lead to ambiguity in many cases of article naming on persons.
That's why I announce here my plan to start a  guideline for dealing with article naming of articles on people. I think the logical name for such guideline would be:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)Using a guideline name differing from the existing ones, as long as it's merely a proposal, also helps not to disturb existing rules (and their talk pages) too much: while in the end it might result in no more than a few ideas of this proposition being "absorbed" by other guidelines (or the other way around). But that's for the wikipedia community to decide then. First I try to cooperate in building a valid alternative, better in line with general Naming Conventions guidelines. --Francis Schonken 11:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New initiative 

message: Does any policy/guideline exist for the naming of such list?
Because currently everything is a real mess
Variants include:
#List of Sultans of Brunei
#President of South Yemen
#Heads of state of Algeria
#Rulers of Tuscany
#Duke of Aquitaine - several styled themselves "King" (+ 1 duchess)
#List of Serbian monarchs - Perhaps the one most widely used on Wiki now, but such as the one bellow creates problems
#List of monarchs of Naples and Sicily
(for a larger sampling see User:Fornadan/slby)
I think a consistent naming of these lists should be strived for because often you are interrested in comparing several of them. Currently you usually have to guess the right name. IMO they should be moved to "List of rulers of X" or "Rulers of X" since then you'd avoid problems with changing titles & female rulers Fornadan (t) 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rulerlists article name policy 

message: I find the naming conventions for languages not to be very helpful, since they don't mention language varieties at all. (I'm copying this here from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages) since it remained unanswered there.)
Take for instance German varieties found in the family tree of the article West Germanic languages: We find the following schemes being used for subgroups of languages (I'm referring to the actual names of the articles, not to the names used on the page):
#XXX, for instance Austro-Bavarian
#XXX language, for instance Alemannic language
#XXX [parent language name], for instance High German
#XXX [parent language name] language, for instance Central German language
#XXX [parent language name] languages, for instance Upper German languages
In the same family tree, the following schemes are used for individual varieties:
#XXX, for instance Wymysojer (what's that?)
#XXX language, for instance Limburgish language
#XXX dialect, for instance Silesian dialect
#XXX [parent language], for instance Basel German
#XXX [parent language] language, for instance Pennsylvania German language
With regards to varieties of the English language, there is luckily less confusion of naming schemes, the de facto standard seemingly being XXX [parent language] (that is, XXX English), both for subgroups and for individual varieties, as can be seen on the pages linked on the List of dialects of the English language. There are very few exceptions that use the scheme XXX, such as Received pronunciation (most of the XXX schemes, however, don't link to varieties of English, but to regions or ethnic groups, such as Dorset or Cockney). I have not found any English variety or group of varieties whose naming scheme would include language(s) or dialect(s), which makes a sharp contrast to the varieties of German discussed above.
I favour the de facto naming standard for English varieties and groups of varieties, XXX [parent language]. There are several advantages of the scheme XXX [parent language]:
*It avoids the delicate term dialect.
*It does not distinguish between a group of varieties and an individual variety, which is in most cases a question of interpretation (Southern American English can be referred to either as a group of varieties or as a special variety).
*It specifies at once what language the variety belongs to.
Of course, varieties that are being used as standard languages of their own right should be named according to the existing scheme XXX language, for instance Luxembourgish language or Yiddish language. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 14:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: language varieties and groups thereof

message: This page says:
::In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers).
"Always" is much too strong.  The article titled The Beatles obviously should NOT be singular, but this word is sometimes singular: Ringo Starr is a "former Beatle", not just a "former member of the Beatles".  Joint Chiefs of Staff is another obvious exception.  Legendre polynomials, Hermite polynomials, etc., are exceptions because, although one may speak of, for example, the 6th Hermite polynomial, using the singular, the whole sequence of Hermite polynomials is what the article is about, and it would seems strange to regard the fact that a polynomial is one of the Hermite polynomials as of interest in isolation from knowledge of the sequence as a whole.
The word "always" is used too promiscuously here.  Someone once wrote on this page that the bolded title word in an article should not be italicized unless it's a word that's ALWAYS italicized.  Of course, it should have said unless there's some specific other reason to italicize, i.e. don't italicize MERELY because it's the bolded title phrase.  What it should have said is what it did say last time I looked (months ago).
I just moved Bell number back to the plural Bell numbers; my reasons are similar to those that apply to Hermite polynomials.  I would do the same thing with Bernoulli numbers and Fibonacci numbers. Michael Hardy 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Or perhaps we should rename this page "Naming convention" ;) Enchanter 18:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Beatles" and "Joint Cheifs of Staff" are examples where the cannonical name is plural.  So it would be sufficient to say "plural the overwhelming majority of the time" rather than "always plural".  Your mathematical examples are an interesting case, because you might very well say that something is a Fibonacci number, but probably not without having other Fibonacci numbers next to it. Nate 14:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SOME article titles should be plural

message: Hi, I was wondering if the article Dr Marc Edmund Jones complies with the naming convention? "Dr" shouldn't be there, should it? Unless it is a fictional character. --202.156.2.75 02:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dr" 

message: I have taken the liberty of attempting to propose a set of naming conventions for interbank networks.  The conventions are the following:
*Unique interbank network names will keep their names (ex. Expressnet, Interac)
*Interbank network names that could result in naming conflicts or redirects to disambig pages will conform to the "X (interbank network)" model (ex. Cirrus (interbank network), Pulse (interbank network)).  In other cases, if the name is an abbreviation, the full name can be used (ex. Malaysian Electronic Payment System which is abbreviated as MEPS) or the X (interbank network) model can be used (ex. MEPS (interbank network))
*Interbank network names in which the abbreviation is more popular will use the abbreviated name (ex. JETCO which in full is Joint Electronic Teller Services Limited)
*Interbank network names which could be or are abbreviations but have no known full name will use the abbreviated (or original) name (ex. NYCE, MNET).  In cases where this can conflict, the X (interbank network) model will be used (ex. DIAS (interbank network), STAR (interbank network))
For interbank network additions, please add them to  template.
--Akira123323 12:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interbank networks 

message: I suggest adding the following paragraph to this policy. It's a helpful hint about consulting existing authority control tools.
Library of Congress Authority Files show how the (U.S.) Library of Congress solves naming problems. They provide a searchable database of names for subjects, authors, and titles of works. In many cases, names are attributed to a specific source. For example, a subject search for "jive music" shows that the Library of Congress would file items under one of the subject headings "Jazz", "Swing (Music)", or "Blues (Music)". Each of those has a note about its applicability or definition. A note under "Jazz" quotes a definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary, "jive: hot jazz". As of January 2004, Wikipedia's entry jive is a disambiguation. One of its items is "Jive is swing music, or a type of quick-paced and energetic jazz."
--Hoziron 01:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority control 

message: Should Football clubs be named by their full names (like Manchester United F.C., FC Lokomotiv Moscow, Juventus Football Club) or without "FC" (or likewise "FK", "F.C.", etc.)? Couldn't find any policy... It seems different clubs use totally different style! --Monkbel 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Decide case by case, for a given club, whichever name is in most common usage in English. Rd232 14:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a viable option. Neither the full nor the abbreviated names are most common usage. Eg the Barcelona club is just Barcelona in normal usage, but that is the name of the city. CalJW 22:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Club names 

message: On the Puck-man history page, there's been a small argument on the redirecting issue.  Gerardvschip, who created the page, says that there should be seperate articles and that the Pac-Man article, if anything, should redirect to the Puck-man article, since Puck-man is the original title.  This doesn't fall under the listed video and gaming conventions - doesn't this fall under the widely known vs. original argument?  And if so, where should Pac-Man go?  The current Puck-man article is rather redundant and already repeated in the Pac-Man article, so one has got to be redirected. Hbdragon88 17:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pac-Man argument 

message: (Continuing from Talk:We Love Katamari I'm opening a conversation here based on previous topics scattered across the wiki.)
There is apparently no sitewide policy on the use of typographical symbols in product names. This would effect article titles such as:
*We ♥ Katamari vs. We Love Katamari
*I ♥ Huckabees vs. I Heart Huckabees
*Toys "Я" Us vs. Toys "R" Us
*Alien³ vs. Alien 3
*clerks. vs. Clerks (movie)
*Adaptation. vs. Adaptation (film)
*Adam@Home vs. Adam at Home
As you can see, usage is not currently uniform. Previous conversations have taken place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Handling of special movie titles, Talk:We Love Katamari, and Talk:I Heart Huckabees. These have not been conclusive.
Arguments against the use of typographical symbols include:
*"Untypability" - I believe this was adequately refuted above. Any problems relating to this can be easily overcome with the use of redirects.
*Unicode-compatibility - Wikipedia:Unicode states that client-side Unicode support is a reasonable assumption. In Talk:We Love Katamari, Poiuyt Man offered this link which identifies Unicode-capable browser versions, which may be of interest.
Arguments in favor:
*Some symbols, such as ♥, do not have a definitive pronunciation - for example, We Love Katamari vs. I Heart Huckabees. Without referring to trademarks (which may cover both pronunciations anyway), it is difficult to determine which reading should be considered definitive. Redirects from both to an article title using the typographical symbol would neatly resolve any argument. --April Arcus 18:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Typography in Article Titles

message: Is there any sort of standard for the Cuisine pages? It seems there should be. Some pages are "X cuisine" and others "Cuisine of X" without any consistency that I can see. Not all of the forms seem to have redirects, either.
:I would say we should use "of" to standardize, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28country-specific_topics%29, but others have disagreed in the past. A while ago one editor unilateraly moved most of them to the adjective ("X-ian") version. Of course, in either case redirects are desired. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "X cuisine" is preferable because it is normal English usage. CalJW 22:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuisine 

message: When writing WP articles is there a preferred spelling for words like colour/color, centre/center, colonise/colonize, etc?
I'd be grateful if you could point me to it, if it's documented it's very well hidden.
I think as a minimum we should stick to the one rule (don't really care which one) where possible.
The ideal scenario would be to have some development and have WP display American or British spellings depending on user preferences. E.g. the author writes .
This is because a lot of time is wasted by some people "correcting" these spelling, and some others "correcting" them back, edit wars, etc.PizzaMargherita 08:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). BlankVerse ∅ 09:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British vs American spellings 

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 /Archive 5. Give me a minute. --Francis Schonken 15:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive