Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 9

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (rockets):
:The purpouse of this naming convention is to standardise naming for ICBMs and space launch vehicles. It also covers other forms of ballistic misslies, such as IRBMs, and sounding rockets.
So far I have found 13 different ways of naming them - obviously this is a mess, so they need to be standardised. 
I have reccomended that the best naming convention would be to use the name, followed by the term rocket in parenthesis.
This could be used in conjunction with a name only format where appropriote, for example a page could be located at Titan III, but with a redirect at Titan III (rocket) rather than the other way around. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Rockets associated with space

message: I've noticed a proliferation of cemetery articles, with no standard naming guideline for them. Would anyone object to using the same guidelines for cemeteries as are used for schools? Peruse :Category:Cemeteries by country for an idea of some naming styles currently used. As an example, compare :Category:Cemeteries in Alabama to :Category:Cemeteries in New Jersey. Mindmatrix 17:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your proposal. -Will Beback 19:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cemeteries

message: IUPAC is pretty clear about this, and so is the literature, where you'll read carbon-14 and not Carbon-14 (unless at the beginning of a sentence. IUPAC Provisional Recommendations for the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (2004) (online draft of an updated version of the "Red Book"). Of course, all chemical symbols remain capitalized, whether used as isotope symbols or not. So it's C or C-14 or 14C. Steve 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it's Wikipedia policy that all article names begin with a capital letter.  --JeffW 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Wasn't suggesting anything else, there (e.g. element articles). Caps in the first word of article subheadings are also fine. This is like caps at sentence beginnings.Steve 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical elements when written out are common nouns in English, and not to be capitalized. This includes isotope names when written out

message: Original Discussion: Talk:Case Closed#Moved to "Case Closed"?
Although this discussion was last year, it still lacked a consensus up to now, so I should bring it here.
Background: This anime/manga series was started in 1994(manga)/1996(anime), and from the start the official name as given by Japan is Detective Conan. 
In 2003, supposedly under the pressure of TMS and also due to the trademark issue with Conan the Barbarian, anime producer in Japan, US anime distributor FUNimation changed the title of the series to Case Closed, and anglized the names of major characters. VizMedia, the manga distributor for the manga in US, also followed this set of renaming and anglizations. The UK manga distributor used a sub-licence from VizMedia and and is also Anglized. However, English-using elsewhere continue to use the name Detective Conan since it was the Japanese official.
Issue: 
#In this case, the naming of all articles related to this series should follow to Japanese names or Anglo-American names?
#When other articles refer to this series and/or its characters, it is the Japanese or the Anglo-American names?
Samuel Curtis 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detective Conan/Case Closed? 

message: There really needs to be a naming convention for the categories of WikiProject participants. They are currently all over the "map." My current favorite naming convention for these categories is Participants in WikiProject (name).
Here is a list of how some are named:
*Members of WikiProject (name)
*WikiProject (name) members
*WikiProject (name) Members
*Participants of WikiProject (name)
*WikiProject (name) participants
*WikiProject (name) Participants
*(name) WikiProject members
*User WP(name)
*User (name)
Can we please come up with one way to name these categories?—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest something of the form "WikiProject [name] [members/participants]", as that would match the more commonly used names for other project categories (e.g. "WikiProject [name] articles", "WikiProject [name] templates", etc.) Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What word to you prefer participants or members? - LA @ 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that "members" is the more obvious term.  I suppose the exact term used varies with the project, though, so forcing all projects to adopt one or the other might step on some toes.  Kirill Lokshin 23:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think members sounds like something that you would join in a more formal sense than is done for a Wikiproject.  --JeffW 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So go with WikiProject (name) participants? - LA @ 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WkiProject participants 

message: You can remove Ice on Fire from User:Cmh/List of page titles with multiple capitalizations -- Mattbrundage 17:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice on Fire 

message: I've started a new WikiProject on this issue (shortcut: WP:REDS), as it seems to be the cause of more than a few edit wars and unpleasantness on talk pages. SB Johnny 11:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project (Regional English) 

message: Are there any guidelines related to the capitalization of dance names, like foxtrot, waltz, tango, salsa, ballet, swing, etc.? There's been a dispute about that on the Dance WikiProject for quite some time. Other encyclopedias and dictionaries don't seem to have a standard. We've agreed that dances derived from proper nouns should be capitalized (such as Balboa and Argentine tango) and that the names of performances and choreography should be capitalized (such as Swan Lake and Shim Sham), but what about more common dance names (like waltz and tango)? Also, what about specific dance moves (like swingout and box step)? --Cswrye 14:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of dances 

message: As the D&D section has been fleshed out there has grown a noticeable inconsistency in the naming of the articles. Some articles work just fine with a single name Hexblade, Favored Soul because these have no equivalent external to the game. However, many others (Samurai, Shaman, Cleric, etc.) do have real world equivalents and have been flagged with "(Dungeons & Dragons)" at the end of the article name. This has lead to some very ugly links and difficulty in editing. I started to clean all of these up by putting them all under the "(Dungeons & Dragons)" umbrella, but it was pointed out to me that I should run this by the naming conventions thread.
I understand that heirarchies are generally to be avoided but this seems like a case where any hope of consistency requires that kind of structure. Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.
--Laxrulz777 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dungeons & Dragons links

message: Is there a convention that may address what to do in a case where a character has been adapted from a novel to the screen and had their name changed, but are clearly the same person? Example: there are a number of James Bond characters like this - Jill Masterton from Ian Fleming's Goldfinger was adapted to film and her name was changed to Jill Masterson (the one that was famously painted gold). They're the same person and truly do not warrant separate articles. But which should be the article title? I feel they should be the original Fleming name, but one editor feels differently. Honeychile Rider, Domino Vitali, Judy Havelock and a few others are also in the same boat. I have started a discussion on this at Talk:James Bond where there are two other editors who support the Fleming name. Looking for more input on this. K1Bond007 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same character different name

message: A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to decide whether the standard for football club article titles should be changed from "...F.C." to "...FC" (e.g. Liverpool F.C. to Liverpool FC), or to something else. This may impact about 2000 articles and several hundred categories - please visit the discussion if you are interested. — sjorford++ 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football (soccer) clubs 

message: This "binding" poll is using majority voting to establish naming conventions that, as of now, fly in the face of established conventions. Using "Michigan M-1" for a highway named M-1 violates both our naming conventions and common sense. Of course you my disagree, in which case you should "vote" too. Because all that matters is a numerical majority. --SPUI (T - C) 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Which naming conventions and/or common sense does the poll "violate"? --physicq210 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And by the way, if you don't want to follow this, I'm sorry. We're ordered to by ArbCom, not doing this out of our own free time. --physicq210 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll threatens to violate "use common names"

message: Due to the recent turmoil on community pages, a large community straw poll is being conducted. Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll is now open for voting. Despite resolutions made on this page, many others are facing turmoil similar to what this page is, or once did face. In an effor to solve the issue, I invite all Wikipedians to vote there by September 18th on this page following the procedures and ballot instuctions explained there. Thank You. Ericsaindon2 06:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: I refer to Talk:Case Closed#Request for Comment: Case Closed Naming Conventions; the synopsis of the dispute is provided there. This topic has been a constant dispute over two years, with some power persuasions on most sides of the camp. I think the major issue hidden in this dispute is the definition of "English speaker" in WP:NAME. It refers to anglophones, or people who know English regardless of native language? Please comment to the Talk page thread above since the dispute has already been spread out among many pages. --Samuel Curtis 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conflict Between two English-language, "official" names 

message: I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large City Strawpoll Construction

message: --SPUI (T - C) 10:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to pass a naming convention with only 59% in favor

message: Is this page out of control or is it just me? Glancing at the page, amid noticing that the TOC is fucking ridculous, I noticed that this page has a WHOLE HEADER for "Ohio School Districts" which is just a proposal.. Am I wrong in saying that this page needs some dicipline? Fresheneesz 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy shit - Out of control? 

message: Recently there was a debate over whether to change the name of the Roman Catholic Church article to Catholic Church. This debate spilled out onto a number of subpages, including a few CfD and WP:Requested moves. The result of the main discussion was no consensus to change the name (the vote was nearly 50/50). Out of this, a new discussion has started among a number of editors from both sides of the previous vote. We are trying to create a disclaimer, stating that a) wikipedia does not prefer RCC or CC, and that both are acceptable b) the name of the main article isn't necessarily precedent for tha names of other catholic topic articles and c) changing either the name of an article, or the terms used within the text of an article is frowned upon without a good reason and a prior consensus. We have been working on User:Leinad-Z/RCC Disclaimer. I was thinking that this would be a good thing to be part of the Naming conventions, so I was wondering if any editors here could review, edit, suggest improvements on what we have so far, and perhaps tell us, when we are ready, how we could go about getting this included in the Naming conventions, if that is an appropriate course of actions. Thanks.--Andrew c 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  introducing policy? 

message: I'd just like to put in a word for WP:NAME.  It's one of my favorite Wikipedia policies--I love the way that it recognizes that the real name of a thing is what people call it, rather than what some body of experts thinks people should call it. (See: Pluto.)
I'm concerned that over time this admirable policy is getting chipped away, as groups of editors who specialize in various topics decide that it doesn't apply to the area that they happen to be interested in--you've got doctors and doctor-wannabes who have changed the perfectly good common name of heart attack to myocardial infarction; you've got aristocracy buffs who insist that the titles of articles for famous writers like Lord Byron or Lord Dunsany should include the information that they're the umpteenth baron of wherever, just in case you might be confusing the famous writer with an obscure petty landlord of the 13th century; and you've got astronomy geeks (I use the phrase affectionately) attaching obscure numerical designations to the names of asteroids (and now dwarf planets) because that's the "official" name--which of course isn't really the question according to WP:NAME.  I'm sure people can provide other examples of their own.
My experience is that you don't get anywhere arguing about these things on the talk pages of the articles in question, because the people who edit articles tend to have (or to think they have) some expertise in the topic at hand, and so tend to see the question from the expert's point of view--which is explicitly not the point of view of WP:NAME.  I just wanted to make a plea that the policy as a whole is worth respecting, and maybe should take precedence over the perceived ideal organization of information within a particular subsection of Wikipedia. Nareek 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The erosion of WP:NAME 

message: There are rather a few articles currently names like Area code 201, which displays regional bias.  But there's currently little consensus over what they should be renamed to in order to avoid this.  I've set up a poll at Talk:North_American_Numbering_Plan#Article_name_changes, and would welcome comments on the options discussed there. JulesH 08:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephone area codes. 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes)#Clarification re dashes separating surnames in page names for a naming convention responsibility for which this page has explicitly deferred to WP:MOSDASH ("For use of hyphens, dashes and hair spaces in page names, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes).").  It would be best to keep the discussion together in one place there, but since it is a naming convention issue it needs mention here.  Gene Nygaard 14:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dashes in article names

message: Are the articles in :Category:Streets in Dallas at any sort of accepted standard? --NE2 10:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming question

message: I would like to request assistance at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), where a few editors are insisting that (1) Guidelines are policy; (2) That Guidelines should be voted on; and (3) That majority rules.  I've been trying to point out things like Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:VIE and Wikipedia:Guideline, but I'm getting overwhelmed, and, since I'm in the "minority," I'm being accused of bad faith.  Could someone else who understands the way that things are supposed to work, please come in?  I'm not asking for help in deciding the issue, but we do need help in clarifying the process.  Thanks, --Elonka 23:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not at all what is going on. When requesting comments please try to be neutral. "Could someone else who understands the way that things are supposed to work, please come in?" Yeah, I'd call stuff like that bad faith. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting on guidelines

message: I've noticed this hasn't been noted here yet: It has been proposed that this official policy be semi-protected on a continuous basis. See Wikipedia:Semi-protecting policy pages to help reach a consensus on what to do. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protectoin proposal

message: A river should be named its common name as:
:Stillwater River
:-- except where there are others with the same name. In that case, it should contain its mouth as:
::Stillwater River (Nashua River)
::-- except where that is not unique. It that case, the mouth of the river in its mouth should be part of the name:
:::Stillwater River (Nashua River (Merrimack River))
*Many rivers in the US are presently named as "River Name (State)." This won't work for rivers in other countries. It is time to create a convention that we can all use. Note that the mouth of a river is often not another river, but a water body such as a bay, ocean, lake, etc. Using the above definition should uniquely identify a river anywhere on the planet. -- LymanSchool 13:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the double parenthesis in your example above. I think a better solution would be: "Stillwater River (Merrimack River)" or "Stillwater River (Merrimack River, Nashua River)". I'm also not sure that a strict set of rules are required. It's probably enough to decide things on a case-by-case basis, although a recommendation that rivers in need of disambiguation (where it cannot be done by political boundaries) be named after the location of their out-flows could perhaps be incorporated somewhere. --Stemonitis 13:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms), where there has been discussion of this sort of issue previously. I also dislike the nested parentheses. And I don't really see any problem with using a political entity for disambiguation, where appropriate. Using the tributary system isn't very helpful when dealing with mutliply ambiguous entities and when many of those entities are relatively unfamiliar. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are also cases of disambiguating phrases that are standard in popular usage, such as the fact that one of the variety of rivers named the Red River is popularly called the Red River of the North when ambiguity may arise. Michael Hardy 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a common mistake to extend the function of disambiguation to being informational for the reader - that is not the purpose of the title.  The title of an article is supposed to simply uniquely identify the subject of the article with the name that is most commonly used to refer to that subject.  If that alone does not inform the reader as to what the article is about, it does not matter.  If they're at the article, the article content is supposed to tell them that.  If they're at another page, the context around the link to the article is supposed to tell them that.  Extending the function of titles to be informational as to the content of the article is choosing a road paved with good intentions, however... --Serge 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the title is just a title, an address for links to point to, etc. -- Ned Scott 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for naming rivers

message: There has been lots of arguing over "diacritics are not English" and therefore do not belong in English-language titles of the English Wikipedia. However, English usage in current reference appears to favor the original name syntax over the various past transliterations (speaking more specifically of Eastern European Latin-scripted languages). I propose that for articles regarding people of Eastern European origins, use of their Latin-scripted diacriticalized ("native") syntax name be adopted for article titles as well. It's just too confusing to stick one thing in the title and then use something else once you've explained what the person's real name is. Please see the diacritics discussion Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Technology, not "it's not English," is why diacritics were historically stripped in English for why the current policy of anglicizing titles reflects a technology restriction, not a choice made on linguistics. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native versus anglicized people names 

message: It would appear we have a consensus that this naming onvention has gained wide acceptance of involved participants and should be promoted to an official guideline. Comments, as always, appreciated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)]] is near completion 

message: During the past few months, there have been many heated discussions about the naming of football-related articles in Australia.  It has mostly all settled down now, but we get the occasional new user questioning things, so I wanted to formalise what was decided so that there was somewhere to point people to when they asked about it.  I have written up User:Chuq/Football in Australia and am hoping to gain consensus to mark it as an official policy (at at least, an official guideline!).  Anyone have a problem with me moving it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)? -- Chuq 11:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should check your page thoroughly before you submit it for something like this; for instance, disambiguating gridiron. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the point of listing it was to get some peer review happening, in order to find errors such as that.  What is the official procedure from here? -- Chuq 10:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No answer.. and we are still getting new users questioning things - so I have been bold, moved it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and marked it as a proposal.  I'm about to add it to the proposed conventions list and inform relevant WikiProjects. -- Chuq 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football in Australia 

message: The name of the film is this: "She Shoulda Said 'No!'".  The actual title includes the quotes.  Where should the eventual article reside? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct article title question 

message: I refer to a interesting discussing discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#What_should_the_standard_be_for_translating_non-standard_characters?. This discussion is on how we deal with non-alphanumeric characters (in this case, ♪, ☆ or ★)  that are in Unicode and used in titles of manga. Should they appear as the name of the article? Please give your opinions over there.--Samuel Curtis-- TALK 12:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names with Nonstandard Characters 

message: There is a war going on between Russian and Ukrainian version for various names. The most notorious example were Kiev v. Kyyiv (Russian version is winning), Chernigov v. Chernihiv (Ukrainian version is winning). I believe there should have been discussion on this somewhere but I could not locate it yet. I would like to draw your attention to people names, Vasyl v. Vasily (see Ivanchuk), Aleksandr v. Oleksandr (see Dovzhenko), Andrey v. Andriy, etc. What is Wikipedia policy here?(Igny))
: I would start at WP:UE for policy guidelines. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainization of Ukrainians 

message: I posted a couple months ago with no response. For the past few years, there has been debate over whether the church in question should be titled the "Roman Catholic Church" or simply the "Catholic Church", and whether wikipedia should use one of those terms exclusively. There has been no consensus to support the latter, and a weak consensus to support RCC as the main title of the article. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate, and there are specific situations were one or the other makes more sense. However, there are editors with strong POV who feel that  the correct and proper title of this church is of the utmost theological importance. These editors tend to randomly go through articles and change RCC to CC or vice versa (which often leads to reverts, edit wars, and debate on half a dozen talk pages). To avoid these sort of situations, a few editors (after the last major vote on this issue) came up with a disclaimer that discourages users from editing for the sole purpose of changing the name of this church without prior consensus. I wanted to get this into the naming conventions but as I said, I received no feedback here back in september. Can I just create a section and import out 'disclaimer' text to this page? Is this a good idea, is there another process that I am not following?--Andrew c 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a similar problem at the moment with Republic of Macedonia vs. FYROM. My suggestion is that we need a general rule here rather than something too specific that would cover all cases like this. For instance,  Where there is a conflict over naming, reference to the subject in other articles should reflect the name used for the article . Could something like this be added to the nutshell?? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I'd support RCC over CC to specify it over other Greek Orthodox-related CCs. Zz414 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having a more general rule something like "Some controversial names have failed to reach consensus to prefer one name over the other. In these rare instances, wikipedia accepts the use of BOTH names, and editing between one or the other name without prior discussion and consensus is forbidden. Changes should generally be discouraged, and discussed on a case by case if necessary. Examples of this are Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; AD/BC vs. CE/BCE; Republic of Macedonia vs. FYROM; etc". I'd definately support that. I would just like to see something concreate that says "Hey, this name is controversial, so don't edit wikipedia for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another controversial name." only in more technical terms.--Andrew c 00:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little hard to understand the Western notion of accepting the name placed by the enemy.  Many American Indian tribes have historical names that are the result of European explorers or colonials first encountering a tribe that was the enemy of another tribe, so the name translates in the first tribe's language as "other" or "outsider" or "enemy."  There has been a decided academic trend against this for at least the past 30 years, that is, of maintaining the enemy's designation for a tribe.  Orthodox-related CCs?  You mean like the Byzantine Catholic Church?  Or the Greek Orthodox Church?  The former is Catholic, the latter is, well, it's also the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."  The Byzantine Church is a Catholic Church, spiritually one with the Pope, but under its own rites otherwise.   Catholic Church as a whole refers to the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches.  "Roman Catholic" can also be used to distinguish the rite or the church of the Latin Church, (the Western Catholic Church) versus that of the Eastern Catholic Church, so if the article is titled, "Roman Catholic Church," it should include a disambiguation page and link to the page that explains the Roman Catholic Church versus the various individual churches that form the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Again, togther they form the  Catholic Church.  Sorry to bore anyone if this was already discussed, as I assume it has, but it doesn't seem to have impacted anything.  KP Botany 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really prefer not to rehash the pros and cons for each name, but instead discuss a general policy point that would urge editors to respect existing names, and discourage editing for the sole purpose of changing what name an article uses. For example back in June, we had an editor who went around removing the word "Roman" from Catholic related articles. Now, we have an editor using AWB to add the word "Roman" to the link Catholic Church because it is a redirect page. I feel both of these actions only lead to edit warring and big discussions that have yet to result in any clear consensus either way. I support using both terms, and I (and other editors) just want something in the naming conventions that mentions this. I'd rather not get into the specifics regarding why RCC or CC is the superior term.--Andrew c 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but then you wind up with things like what some call the Roman Catholic Church, or the Latin Rite Catholic Church Wikipedia calls the Latin Rite, and you can't actually get to the Latin Rite page via typing in Roman Catholic Church because they both redirect to the Roman Catholic Church, meaning the Catholic Church article .... Ultimately easy solutions to complex problems sometimes aren't easy.  KP Botany 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly! --Andrew c 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCC vs CC 

message: This proposal has risen from the last vote in the endless RCC vs. CC debate (see Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive7 and User:Leinad-Z/RCC Disclaimer). Here is a proposed text. Please discuss. Suggested alterations are welcomed.
:Controversial names
:In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, Wikipedia allows the use of both names. The current title of a page is not intended to imply that either the title name is preferred or the alternative name is discouraged in the text of Wikipedia articles. The article title should also not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles in Wikipedia. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. The naming convention used by the earliest contributor takes precedent. Any effort to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before making changes. However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways you can improve the quality of articles in Wikipedia. An inconclusive list of controversial names: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia.
Andrew c 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC new proposal regarding controversial names 

message: *It's rather verbose, could you maybe shorten it? (Radiant) 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Currently, about 90% of the various 2LC dab pages use upper case for both letters; the remaining 10% use upper then lower. I'd like to see this standardised to both upper - the current system encourages the accidental creation of parallel dab pages for the same combination, one UC/UC and the other UC/LC. It also makes for confusion within the alphabetical listing of articles within the category. Though I can understand some special cases being UC/LC, in the vast majority of cases I don't see any reason why there can't be some form of standardisation. The same could also obviously be done with the 3LAs, but one (smaller) step at a time... Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 12:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off-hand this looks like a good idea; perhaps we could establish that the  template shall be transcluded at the top of the page, and add something like This disambiguation page covers all alternative capitalizations to it. Just an idle thought. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound a reasonable idea but would it apply to dab pages where the main or lead item is itself not a double capital, for example Pi (disambiguation)? I suggest not. :)Abtract 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence my comment about "special cases" :) Grutness...wha? 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages