Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Norse mythology)

message: Proposed by Haukurth:
----
=== Addendum - Common Names ===
After this convention had been written and put to a vote it was pointed out that it was based very heavily on the Use English guideline and seemed to ignore the equally important Common Names guideline. This section is a small attempt to remedy this. 
The part of the Common Names guideline most relevant to this guideline is this:
:Many wikipedia naming conventions guidelines contain implicit or explicit exceptions to the "common names" principle. Some of these exceptions are due to technical limitations, for example "C Plus Plus" while "C++" is technically not possible as a page name.
This is quite true for this guideline. In particular the recommendation to use 'ö' instead of 'ǫ' is based on technical considerations. The guideline continues:
:Other guidelines try to give recommendations for enhanced precision, cleaner disambiguation and/or solution of naming conflicts, which might lead to article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used", for example Laurent-Désiré Kabila and not Laurent-Desire Kabila (which is more used on the Internet).
These are important points for the present guideline. In particular:
*Enhanced precision is achieved by using diacritics when appropriate.
*Cleaner disambiguation is sometimes achieved for the same reason. For example by using Máni rather than Mani (god).
*The guideline does not recommend frequency searches on the Internet as a guide for choosing names.
----
Well, this is a deformation of an interpretation of the common names principle: it would be fairer to say, that you don't care about it, in other words: that this guideline is a plain exception - without trying to elaborate a quirky justification. It's not the only guideline that steered for exception in this sense "successfully" - wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) does the same, and it is a known fact that I think that one of the worst wikipedia guidelines. At least the proponents of that guideline don't indulge in lame excuses.
In detail:
*The use of diacritics is in no way a contribution to the principles laid down in wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) - for Nidhogg you listed 4 or 5 variants using diacritics, none of them being more "precise" than another, or even more precise than "Nidhogg" or "Nydhogg" or "Nydhoggr". There's no ambiguity it's all about the same dragon.
*"Mani (god)" is perfect for disambiguation, that's why it is used at the Mani disambiguation page. I'm not even sure there's none of the other Mani's mentioned on that disambig page wouldn't be with an accent on the a in its native language. "Mani (god)" is perfectly unambiguous.
*The "common names" guideline links to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, that other guideline that's constantly forgotten by those who wish to forget about the "common names" principle (that really goes hand in hand). The "Naming conflict" guideline effectively treats frequency searches on the internet.
--Francis Schonken 17:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I, too, am fine with the guideline as it is. One thing I find outlandish about living in London is how warm and bright the winter is. I've never seen green grass during winter before. - Haukur 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving "addendum" proposal to talk page for discussion prior to implementation 

message: After this convention had been written and put to a vote it was pointed out that it was based very heavily on the Use English guideline and seemed to ignore the equally important Common Names guideline. This section is a small attempt to remedy this. 
The part of the Common Names guideline most relevant to this guideline is this:
:Many wikipedia naming conventions guidelines contain implicit or explicit exceptions to the "common names" principle. Some of these exceptions are due to technical limitations, for example "C Plus Plus" while "C++" is technically not possible as a page name.
This is quite true for this guideline. In particular the recommendation to use 'ö' instead of 'ǫ' is based on technical considerations. The guideline continues:
:Other guidelines try to give recommendations for enhanced precision, cleaner disambiguation and/or solution of naming conflicts, which might lead to article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used", for example Laurent-Désiré Kabila and not Laurent-Desire Kabila (which is more used on the Internet).
These are important points for the present guideline. In particular:
*Enhanced precision is achieved by using diacritics when appropriate.
*Cleaner disambiguation is sometimes achieved for the same reason. For example by using Máni rather than Mani (god).
*The guideline does not recommend frequency searches on the Internet as a guide for choosing names.
----
Well, this is a deformation of an interpretation of the common names principle: it would be fairer to say, that you don't care about it, in other words: that this guideline is a plain exception - without trying to elaborate a quirky justification. It's not the only guideline that steered for exception in this sense "successfully" - wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) does the same, and it is a known fact that I think that one of the worst wikipedia guidelines. At least the proponents of that guideline don't indulge in lame excuses.
In detail:
*The use of diacritics is in no way a contribution to the principles laid down in wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) - for Nidhogg you listed 4 or 5 variants using diacritics, none of them being more "precise" than another, or even more precise than "Nidhogg" or "Nydhogg" or "Nydhoggr". There's no ambiguity it's all about the same dragon.
*"Mani (god)" is perfect for disambiguation, that's why it is used at the Mani disambiguation page. I'm not even sure there's none of the other Mani's mentioned on that disambig page wouldn't be with an accent on the a in its native language. "Mani (god)" is perfectly unambiguous.
*The "common names" guideline links to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, that other guideline that's constantly forgotten by those who wish to forget about the "common names" principle (that really goes hand in hand). The "Naming conflict" guideline effectively treats frequency searches on the internet.
--Francis Schonken 17:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I, too, am fine with the guideline as it is. One thing I find outlandish about living in London is how warm and bright the winter is. I've never seen green grass during winter before. - Haukur 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addendum - Common Names 

message: This debate about whether to use ligatures in article titles is the best example of a long-running unresolved debate I've seen anywhere on Wikipedia.  Why don't you take it to mediation? --James S. 09:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediate? 

message: Apart from previous discussions above (and in the archives), see User talk:Haukurth#What changed --Francis Schonken 22:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well documented that Francis doesn't like this convention. Still the strawpoll showed considerable support for it but also that not everyone likes it. It therefore falls into the category of convention. It is no less or more disputed than before so I am removing the new tag. Stefán Ingi 23:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute notice 

message: may I direct someone's attention to Talk:Ragnarök where the rant-first-ask-questions-later-(if-at-all) du jour is going on? I am tired of these aggressive article-by-article style warriors.   dab (ᛏ) 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more disputes

message: I suggest that the lead section here (and the paragraph at Wikipedia:Naming conventions) be replaced with the following, which summarizes this article and gives useful information by itself rather than requiring the reader to read the article:
:When one particular Anglicized form for a name is overwhelmingly most common and well known to the average English speaking person, it is used for the article title, e.g. Odin, Thor.  When no particular Anglicized form can be said to be in common use in everyday English and English speaking scholars use the standardized Old Norse spelling, use the standardized Old Norse spelling except replace the o-ogonek character (ǫ) with the character 'ö'.  We should endeavour to supply every variant of Anglicized spelling somewhere within the article, in the first paragraph when that is practical.
--Coppertwig (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making an informative summary