Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 11

message: Are articles allowed to have contractions in its title? The only guideline I found on contractions is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contractions. --Silver Edge 08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contractions 

message: *From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Other guidelines "As per a very lengthy debate, full names should be used for video game character article namespaces when they appear in-game. Otherwise the common name should be used." The same goes for all fictional elements within game universes (Countries, religions, etc.)
* If a fictional element needs disambiguation, it should be qualified with the name of the series it first appeared in (i.e. Ryu (Street Fighter)). A logical conclusion might also be to qualify with the name of the company that owns the element, as it might appear in more than one series (i.e. Ryu (Capcom)), but this should be avoided as the topic might appear to be non-fictional, or a video game itself.
~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional elements in video games

message: Looking to suggest that a guideline on the use of military titles be developed in the style guide.  This should be standard and not vary.  In non wiki style guides there are guidelines on this, this is needed here. 166.217.48.32 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about military titles in article titles? Because we don't generally do that. As far as I know, the only articles in which we allow any sort of titles or positions in the article's title are those of Roman Catholic popes and some dynasties of Chinese emperors. --Hemlock Martinis 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of military Titles 

message: With respect to this issue of US city names, I'd just like to note that Canada moved from a naming convention similar to the current US one to one in which cities were allowed to dispense with the province name whenever the name is a primary usage.  Whereas we continue to argue endlessly about US cities, so far as I can tell the Canadian cities have settled into a fairly reasonable consensus.  Individual article moves can be discussed on individual article pages, and people can argue specifically about the particular issues with regard to each city.  It's all fairly lovely.
Japan and Australia have, iirc, somewhat similar systems to what is being proposed here - a short list of particularly important cities get to dispense with the prefecture or state disambiguation.  In this case, again, there seems to be little trouble.
The idea that the best reason for the current system for US cities, which is constantly causing arguments, is that it avoids arguments, is ridiculous.  Quite clearly the current system causes arguments when compared to systems that allow for exceptions, where there is far less silly argument of this sort.  john k 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the proposal is to move all of these cities at once, and essentially changing the policy in regards to the naming guidelines of these specific cities preempting the discussion and consensus building that editors at individual city pages can come to regarding their city's naming policy. In my opinion, the only compromise here is to allow/encourage the editors for each city to take up the issue of possible city name moves. I understand that each of the cities involved had a banner, but at least in the case of Denver, a few of the editors were confused about where to take up the discussion as it seemed to be telling editors to discuss it on the individual city talk pages rather than this page, which is of course where the decision will be made from. My main point is that every city has unique circumstances which in my opinion is decided best from a community consensus of the editors of the individual city pages. Vertigo700 07:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I can add to the mess, one must consider that many contributors to a given city article come from that city itself - this added element of "moi" does much to muddle the objectivity of any "single-name-status" debate. THEPROMENADER 07:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, I prefer this way then going page to and requesting it.  I pointed it out before, but I feel a misconception here is that the proposer came up with a list of cities he feels don't need to follow the comma clause.  Instead each city on this list is considered to have a stand-alone name by the AP.  You (vertigo) mentioned that this goes against the current guidelines, but you do realize that several US cities are already granted 'stand-alone' status on wikipedia.  And of course while consensus in the past was to hold onto the comma clause for dear life, consensus can( and does) change. New England Review Me! 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When Canadian policy was changed, a number of articles were moved at once.  At any rate, if a change in policy is agreed upon, I don't see how any of these examples (with the possible exception of St. Louis, which is mildly ambiguous with Saint Louis) would be controversial.  They are the obvious cities to move if a change is agreed upon.  john k 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada, Japan, Australia 

message: There is currently a naming debate going on Talk:Malcolm Wilkerson, regarding the correct article titles for each of the family members. Any input, esp. by users with experience in related disputes, is welcome. —AldeBaer 19:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional characters 

message: 1. Implement a guideline that clearly defines all U.S. city articles must be named "city, state". 2. This will not apply to cities listed in a specific non-wikipedian list of well known cities, so as to prevent this issue from cropping up again, and only well known cities according to this third party can drop the state. If this list should be the current AP list, or a list of official Gamma-World or Beta-World cities, it doesn't matter. Everyone gets what they way this way (with a little compromise on both sides). Okiefromokla•talk 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's essentially what the currently discussed proposal entails - having the guideline say that City, State is the preferred method, but states in the AP list can be excepted and go by just City.  Discussion on the topic endorsed the AP list over the World Cities list as the latter is heavily biased toward economic significance and overlooks cities prominent for cultural or political significance.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll point up at what Arkyan said and nod my head in agreement, but I'll also add that the GaWC was ruled out because it puts quite a bit of weight in the economic impact a city has to determine where the city ranks on the Global/World city list, when the only thing we're interested in is the recognizability of the city's name without the addition of the state. As an example, the city of Seattle is fairly recognizable by its city name alone, but it only has two points on the GaWC's 1999 list and doesn't appear at all on the 2004 list. The AP list is the only one that we could find that based the list solely on the recognizability of the city name alone, so that's what we went with. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But a flaw of the AP list is the vast disparity of context. The AP list is used for newspaper dateline which has the luxury of one single context-to name a location. That is certainly not the case with Wikipedia in which an editor looking for St. Louis may be looking for St. Louis, or St. Louis, or St. Louis, or  St. Louis etc. In the context of an AP dateline you always know what you are getting and in that singular context the list makes sense and would serve as a fine naming convention if Wikipedia was an almanac of placenames and locations. But Wikipedia doesn't function in that singular context and a worthwhile naming convention will take into consideration that vast audience that Wikipedia appeals to and the multi-faceted reference that it aims to be.AgneCheese/Wine 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage of the AP list does not supplant the primary usage clause in WP:DAB.  We've already removed several cities from the AP's list that Wikipedia has determined their city name alone is not the primary usage (Phoenix, Arizona, Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Nevada) and if there are more, then those can be removed as well. The idea behind the list is that when the average user sees the city name alone the first thing that will pop to most of their minds will be the correct city.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we consider each city on the AP list on a case-by-case basis, and see if anyone objects for any reason other than the comma convention?  New England Review Me! 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  But let's wait and see how this works out over the next few days.  Then we can start trying to move one city at a time.  --Serge 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposition for compromise

message: 2. The standard for U.S. place names at WP:NC:CITY should read:The canonical form for cities in the United States is  City, State (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation will include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). A United States city's article should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").
Nothing in this guideline mandates that U.S. cities not using the City, State standard, e.g. New York City need to be renamed to conform.
If folks are really looking for a simple and consistent solution, this is it.--Paul 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's much of a compromise as it seems to basically be the guideline prior to the recent change allowing for those on the AP list.  I haven't seen any serious discussion about moving Chicago, Philadelphia, and NYC back to the City, State format, some have brought it up, but even they admit it's not going to happen. The problem the US convention has had is not that it is unclear, but that there is a faction that want the comma convention followed all the time, a faction that wants WP:NC(CN) followed using the parenthetical method of disambiguation (Phoenix (Arizona)), and a faction that wants to use the comma convention for disambiguation, but falls somewhere in between the other two factions as far as when to use the convention.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not acceptable (to me, anyway.)  If we have that, we need also: "Nothing in this guideline allows or encourages any U.S. city not to be listed at City, State."  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Be reasonable.  No one is going to support moving "New York City" to "New York City, New York." You need a grandfather clause to keep article reverse-move wars like this very one from erupting on the exception cities. --Paul 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is thoroughly confusing. Anyone have any other ideas for a compromise then? Reading the discussions since my "compromise proposal" earlier, I no longer see a way to forge some kind of agreement between those who don't want these cities to drop the state and those who do. I guess that's why the larger issue has gone on for so long. I will say one thing: having just a few exceptions on an individual basis like Chicago and Philadelphia is not good and something need to change. And I'll tell you another thing: I'm tired of participating in these discussions when its always a split down the middle with not the least bit of a hint that consensus is getting close! Okiefromokla•talk 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is confusing?  Those who don't like the City, State guideline are continuously pushing to subvert the existing standard.  This discussion has assumed many forms over the last few years. The changes made to WP:NC:CITY is exactly the same argument once again, a camels nose under the tent attempt to change the guideline and then get on with the article name moves.  The time to have this discussion was five years ago.--Paul 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just confused because people's opinions starkly contrast with eachother and its hard to try to envision a compromise that works for everybody. I agree with you, Paul: I opposed the move for the AP list originally. In a perfect world, I would want every article to be "city, state"... Okiefromokla•talk 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for compromise 2

message: 3  All cities worldwide should be moved to City, state, province, or county depending on country.  Before you squash this, consider that the fact that European cities need no qualification leads to many of these debates on US cities.  If a universal proposal were adopted, we could have harmony at last.  New England Review Me! 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously proposing we move every single city article in the world!? Okiefromokla•talk 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It eliminates the double-standard that causes many of these debates to pop up time and time again.  New England Review Me! 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea but wouldn't moving so many articles cause a lot of problems and confusion, not to mention so many more redirects? Seems like such a huge change, I mean you're talking about moving every tiny town from the backwoods of Ohio to the jungles of Indonesia. Like I said, I like the idea... but... maybe hearing some more opinions about it will help. Okiefromokla•talk 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the number of articles to be moved as a problem.  If an approach like this is taken, then articles can be moved as dab issues arise or for new articles. A sightly different take that may be more acceptable is to use [city, something] whenever there are two cities sharing the name and leave city as a dab page.  This would apply if the conflict something other then a city.  Vegaswikian 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agne, if you have any suggestions for bringing this to a wider audience, please do share. We're already near the top of the (convention) peak here! THEPROMENADER 22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Proposal for Compromise

message: How about this, we all go over the AP list, and write our objections to each city individually (outside of ones relating to the comma clause)  Then, we move all the cities with few or little objections.  New England Review Me! 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one doesn't address the concern that there needs to be a clear guideline for naming U.S. cities. Okiefromokla•talk 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It makes more sense to come to some kind of general consensus regarding a guideline, and then individual problems/exceptions can be discussed as they come up, rather than trying to figure out all the concievable problems and then write a guideline around them. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is just like the "sub proposal" for proposal #2 I just made. I think its wording is better. I don't know what were doing here with all these proposals but maybe we can just put that sub propsal I made under this heading instead. I would feel more comfortable with User:New England doing that since he/she is the one making these proposals. Okiefromokla•talk 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One major difference is that yours automatically has cities on the AP list get moved, while mine says they can be moved only if they are on the AP list and if there is no other major meaning (yours seemingly makes moves for Pheonix(AZ) and Washington (DC) a sure thing if the guideline passes, while mine doesn't) New England Review Me! 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the real compromise is to say the cities listed above are well-known enough that they can be moved to just the city name IF there is a consensus of editors at each city's talk page. The guideline stays the same generally except for the above cities who will now have the option of changing their name. Vertigo700 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would accept that too, but in my experience (failed attempts to move Boston and Atlanta) most people opposed to the moves opposed only because of the guidelines in place currently, so I think debates should be about most common usage.  New England Review Me! 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we agreed to a change of policy where the above cities could be left alone, that type of debate would become moot. It would only be about whether the editors themselves think the city name should be stateless based on their own opinions and circumstances. The main thing I would like to avoid is any sort of mass migration of city names without consideration of the consensus of editors who work on the pages and therefore going to have to do some work sorting out links and related pages. Vertigo700 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand, New England. My proposal does not mean if the guideline passes the cities on the AP list automatically get moved. My proposal says the AP city articles "can be named on an individual basis" ... meaning editors can determine the status of each city on the list individually.  Okiefromokla•talk 00:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this one just perpetuates our problem of inconsistency and no set standard, so I disagree with this one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  It doesn't create inconsistency.  We cap the number of cities that can appear under CITY by using a list produced by an independent third party.  New England Review Me! 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This allows all cities on the AP list to be decided on an individual basis whether they should drop the "state" part. This is due to the fact that St. Louis is highly ambiguous, for example. It also sets a limit on further exceptions to this rule. In other words, cities on the AP list would be allowed to decide if the article should drop the "state" from the name, but all other cities would be limited to the "city, state" traditional approach. Wording for the guideline can be further changed to make it clear that the cities on the AP list should be moved to "CITY" but can opt out of doing so if it creates DAB problems or something else. The main point is that we unite behind some kind of compromise and I believe this is, by far, the best solution that has ever been proposed on this topic. If we don't agree on this, this discussion will go on for another 5 years, and the current cities proposed to be moved will not pass any time soon. Okiefromokla•talk 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was never intended to imply that each city would be decided here. In fact, it was always the intention that each city decide on its own talk page. Okiefromokla•talk 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I will support. The objection that we must have it here so it can be found seems frivolous; anyone who feels that strongly need only watchlist the pages; and we can even link to them from here as moved, so we can use Recentchanges. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moves don't show up in a watchlist, do they?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moves will show up on your watchlist. That is, of course, assuming you check out your watchlist before someone else performs an edit on the article.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *(ec)They should; they show up in User contributions and history. But I meant the move discussion, which has to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A move does not appear to be a triggering event causing the page to appear on the watchlist, at least in User-space.  If the page is edited before or after the move, it would show up under the new name, and if you'd look at your complete watchlist, you'd see the new page name, but my (small) watchlist is only about 1300, so I might not notice it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you're the one that made the move. Your own contributions do not show up on your watchlist. If you'd like, I could move the page you just moved and it will show up on your watchlist. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My actual edits show up on my watchlist; there are options to ignore (1) your own edits, (2) minor edits, and (3) bot edits.  I have them all off.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I take this period of silence as a lack of intrest for such addition. Perhaps it is better to keep this as simple as possible. Okiefromokla•talk 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it's a lack of interest in the addition.  The lack of discussion  since Friday could be that it is the weekend, which is generally a slow time anyways, weariness from the amount of discussion that has gone on, or a general acceptance.  One of the issues that has always confronted altering the convention is that many of the participants of grown tired of going over the same ground over and over and over and etc again. Due to this, some tend to ignore/not contribute to the discussions until the very end or after the end to voice their opposition. At this point, the only people that have voiced their opinion have supported it in some manner, so I'd say we go with the rewritten version and then send a couple of the "obviously unambiguous" cities as a test run. A couple of cities that I don't see any real problems with are Seattle, Honolulu, and Milwaukee. I'd propose doing move requests for those three, if they fail, then don't continue the move requests, if they succeed, start sending the rest of the list through. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is premature.  Changes to the policy at Naming conventions (settlements) needs to be discussed and agreed to there.  The voting above shows that there is insufficient consensus for the current policy.  You need to build a consensus for a new on AT THE RIGHT PLACE.--Paul 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewritten version is only a minor modification to what was already agreed upon at the naming convention article and all of the participants from settlements page also participated in this discussion. So I'm not sure there is any benefit to repeating the discussion there.  The only real change between the original version and the rewritten version is that it prevents the mass move requests that was a major source of problems in the move request that took place here. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree, but what was previously agreed on did not have broad consensus agreement (see above votes for the moves), and should be rolled back and replaced with this current proposal and discussed on the correct policy page.  Additionally, to ensure that the right population of editors is involved in the discussion, notices should be placed on the talk pages of all of the cities that would affected by the change in naming policy.  THEN, if there is really consensus (as there well may be) the Naming convention policy can be changed again, and actions can be proposed. --Paul 20:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're saying is confusing me.  We should undo the recent changes to the guideline, and replace it with this one.  That makes sense to me.  What doesn't is that you say we then need to open a discussion on this on the settlements subpage.  There seems to be no opposition to this proposal (except from you maybe) and this is the naming conventions talk page.  I don't see the point of discussing it again.   New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with New England and Bobblehead on this particular issue. Hmm... that was funny sounding. Okiefromokla•talk 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal the Fourth

message: *Note: Another possible wording for this proposed guideline would be something like this: 
**""The canonical form for cities in the United States is  City, State (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation will include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). The only exceptions to this guideline are the articles belonging to those cities chosen by the Associated Press in its list of city names that can be used without a corresponding state; these articles should be named on an individual basis, with consensus for naming to be determined on each city's talk page."
:This allows all cities on the AP list to be decided on an individual basis whether they should drop the "state" part. This is due to the fact that St. Louis is highly ambiguous, for example. It also sets a limit on further exceptions to this rule. In other words, cities on the AP list would be allowed to decide if the article should drop the "state" from the name, but all other cities would be limited to the "city, state" traditional approach. Wording for the guideline can be further changed to make it clear that the cities on the AP list should be moved to "CITY" but can opt out of doing so if it creates DAB problems or something else. The main point is that we unite behind some kind of compromise and I believe this is, by far, the best solution that has ever been proposed on this topic. If we don't agree on this, this discussion will go on for another 5 years, and the current cities proposed to be moved will not pass any time soon. Okiefromokla•talk 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was never intended to imply that each city would be decided here. In fact, it was always the intention that each city decide on its own talk page. Okiefromokla•talk 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I will support. The objection that we must have it here so it can be found seems frivolous; anyone who feels that strongly need only watchlist the pages; and we can even link to them from here as moved, so we can use Recentchanges. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moves don't show up in a watchlist, do they?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moves will show up on your watchlist. That is, of course, assuming you check out your watchlist before someone else performs an edit on the article.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *(ec)They should; they show up in User contributions and history. But I meant the move discussion, which has to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A move does not appear to be a triggering event causing the page to appear on the watchlist, at least in User-space.  If the page is edited before or after the move, it would show up under the new name, and if you'd look at your complete watchlist, you'd see the new page name, but my (small) watchlist is only about 1300, so I might not notice it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you're the one that made the move. Your own contributions do not show up on your watchlist. If you'd like, I could move the page you just moved and it will show up on your watchlist. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My actual edits show up on my watchlist; there are options to ignore (1) your own edits, (2) minor edits, and (3) bot edits.  I have them all off.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I take this period of silence as a lack of intrest for such addition. Perhaps it is better to keep this as simple as possible. Okiefromokla•talk 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it's a lack of interest in the addition.  The lack of discussion  since Friday could be that it is the weekend, which is generally a slow time anyways, weariness from the amount of discussion that has gone on, or a general acceptance.  One of the issues that has always confronted altering the convention is that many of the participants of grown tired of going over the same ground over and over and over and etc again. Due to this, some tend to ignore/not contribute to the discussions until the very end or after the end to voice their opposition. At this point, the only people that have voiced their opinion have supported it in some manner, so I'd say we go with the rewritten version and then send a couple of the "obviously unambiguous" cities as a test run. A couple of cities that I don't see any real problems with are Seattle, Honolulu, and Milwaukee. I'd propose doing move requests for those three, if they fail, then don't continue the move requests, if they succeed, start sending the rest of the list through. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is premature.  Changes to the policy at Naming conventions (settlements) needs to be discussed and agreed to there.  The voting above shows that there is insufficient consensus for the current policy.  You need to build a consensus for a new on AT THE RIGHT PLACE.--Paul 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewritten version is only a minor modification to what was already agreed upon at the naming convention article and all of the participants from settlements page also participated in this discussion. So I'm not sure there is any benefit to repeating the discussion there.  The only real change between the original version and the rewritten version is that it prevents the mass move requests that was a major source of problems in the move request that took place here. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree, but what was previously agreed on did not have broad consensus agreement (see above votes for the moves), and should be rolled back and replaced with this current proposal and discussed on the correct policy page.  Additionally, to ensure that the right population of editors is involved in the discussion, notices should be placed on the talk pages of all of the cities that would affected by the change in naming policy.  THEN, if there is really consensus (as there well may be) the Naming convention policy can be changed again, and actions can be proposed. --Paul 20:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're saying is confusing me.  We should undo the recent changes to the guideline, and replace it with this one.  That makes sense to me.  What doesn't is that you say we then need to open a discussion on this on the settlements subpage.  There seems to be no opposition to this proposal (except from you maybe) and this is the naming conventions talk page.  I don't see the point of discussing it again.   New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with New England and Bobblehead on this particular issue. Hmm... that was funny sounding. Okiefromokla•talk 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewritten Version

message: All U.S. city article titles must be at City, State, with no exceptions whatsoever. That means New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia would be moved to New York, New York, Chicago, Illinois and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, respectively. szyslak 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it is worth, if we cannot come to a reasonable compromise in terms of exceptions to the City, State format then it must be strictly observed with no exceptions.  How is it even remotely objective to allow only New York City to drop the state?  If exceptions are to be allowed then a logical, objective method of determining reasonable exceptions must be found - not just "Because it already is". ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem with a "grandfather clause?" Our goal should be to provide an easily understood standard, and to stop the continual proposed move wars that we have now. It's all a complete waste of time, and adds no value to Wikipedia.--Paul 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the problem is the same for New York City as it is for Las Vegas, Nevada, although a different solution was taken.  New York, New York is technically Manhattan, so New York City, in common usage, is taken as the entire "city".  Las Vegas was set as a disambiguation page, as most of what is referred to as Las Vegas is not in the city.  Chicago and Philadelphia would not be exceptions under this proposal, but New York City is.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You'd never get NY to revert.--Loodog 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Do they speak the same language in Europe as the U.S.?  Do they have the same currency? Does Europe use the same units of measure as the U.S.? Are there as many cities in any European country as there are in the U.S.?  Sometimes a double standard isn't a double standard, it's reality.--Paul 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm fairly certain they speak English in England, and why does their use of the metric system and the Euro have to do with the names of cities.  New England Review Me! 02:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually they speak British English and not American English.  Very different.  As far as place names go, they have a very different set of issues given the much longer history and may changes from what I recall seeing in discussions. Vegaswikian 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal Number Five

message: :United States cities with names that are not clearly the primary topic for that name are disambiguated at City, State (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). 
Simple.  Clear.  Consistent with the rest of Wikipedia.  Done. --Serge 23:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not achieving consensus is now strongly rejected?  --Serge 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twice in the past month achieving a supermajority against seems like strongly rejected to me.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal Number Six

message: :United States cities with names that are not clearly the primary topic for that name are disambiguated at City, State (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, South Carolina (Lancaster County) and Elgin, South Carolina (Kershaw County)). 
Same as Number Six, but dabs county in parens instead of double-comma method per Vegaswikian.  Still simple.  Still clear.  This is even more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia than is Proposal Six. Opposition to this (or any other proposal) solely on the grounds that it has been rejected before is ridiculous and should be ignored. As far as the "patchwork" of small communities that will be created which happen to be unique this year, this is no different from any other topic in Wikipedia created with a name that at least initially does not require dabbing.  The number of U.S. communities per year with names that have to be changed from being a redirect to a dab page is tiny, the same tiny that would be affected by adopting this proposal. This silly "justification" for opposition should also be ignored.  What's left to oppose this?  Nothing rational. --Serge 20:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal Number Six (a)

message: :US cities whose names are listed above (the AP guide list?) can be moved from city, state to city as they are deemed to be the primary topic for those names via the consensus of this proposal. However, the actual moving of the city pages as stated about should occur only through the consensus of the editors on each individual city's talk page to take into considerations the effects of such a move would have on the city's pages and people seeking information on Wikipedia. Vertigo700 00:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the need for compromise, but I cannot accept a proposal that would take away the decision from the editors at the city pages themselves, which is essentially the main difference (as I understand it between this and four). I (and I believe some others) are against any sort of mass move without any consensus from the editors at the city pages. To me that is a big difference. Vertigo700 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then is there some way to bring the editors of those city pages into this discussion? This could prove useful. THEPROMENADER 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what, while I think the city's talk pages are the most appropriate place for moving discussions, I'd be willing to support proposal four if and only if each city's move was discussed  (and voted) separately, and new more intuitive banners were placed on each city's talk page directing them to the official discussion. That way the city editors and anyone else could put in their input. So basically there would have to be a single proposal simply giving the option for the above cities to lose the state and then separate proposals for every city move. I really think that is the only fair way to do this, even if it requires a lot of extra voting. It can all be on the same page so as to not take a massive amount of room, but there really needs to be consensus for every city in my opinion. Vertigo700 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent of number four is too have them voted on separately (but these votes would likely run concurrently).  New England Review Me! 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Dispite some assurances otherwise, it still seems to me that this is the same as #4. Also, there seems to have been confusion that proposal #4 meant each AP city was to be decided during this convention or at another; when, in fact, it always intended for the AP list to decide on each individual talk page. The wording has since been clarified, but I stand by my statement that proposal 4 has always been the same as proposal #7 with some wiggle room. And I still believe its pointless to have two of the same proposals. We should focus on the original version. Okiefromokla•talk 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal Number Seven

message: Can we have some actual discussion here rather than voting support/oppose on proposals? I see too many votes with simply "I like it" or "I don't like it" attached, neither of which is a valid argument. m:voting is evil, and people here should be aware that Wikipedia policy and guidelines are not created through majority vote. >Radiant< 10:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly love to see some more constructive discussion rather than the oft-repeated "Something like this was rejected before, so let's reject it again".  The current state of affairs, ie. using the City, State convention with only an ill-defined "There are a few exceptions" is really not useful to editors.  There really ought to be something more objective and concrete to follow. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal number eight

message: If there is agreement on city, state, then we also need to correctly choose a method for disambiguation when needed.  Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina are completely wrong following a city, state convention.  They should be city, state (disambiguation) as in Elgin, South Carolina (Lancaster County) and Elgin, South Carolina (Kershaw County).  The same applies to Poughkeepsie (city), New York and Poughkeepsie (town), New York which should be Poughkeepsie, New York (city) and Poughkeepsie, New York (town).  This totally follows the city, state format and adds the disambiguation at the end of the article name when it is needed.  I don't see the double commas as being helpful or consistent with a city, state guideline.  I also don't see parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of the article name as being consistent with any guideline. Vegaswikian 00:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer the parenthetical method after City, State in both instances as the current layout is rather wikipedia centric from what I can tell. It looks like the current method of disambiguation for settlements with the same name within the same state is not used outside of Wikipedia. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal number nine- city, state disambiguation when needed

message: *A reminder to all that consensus can change. I am of the opinion that this means that any arguments consisting solely of such phrases as "this has been rejected before" or "why waste our time with this again?" are invalid. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, "this was rejected last week" is still reason not to bring it up again.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that one different. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:Consensus can change|Consensus can change]]

message: I note that editors are removing the "proposed moved" tag templates from the affected cities on the AP list. Bearing in mind the following::The change that was agreed to at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) obviously only achieved consensus because of the limited number of participants.  As can be seen here, once the implications of the change is made obvious to the larger Wikipedia community, there is not only no consensus for the change, there is a good deal of opposition.  Accordingly, the changes made at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to include the AP list and creating exceptions to the canonical standard should be rolled back.--Paul 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if this move proposal fails, it indicates a lack of support for the change to the settlements naming guideline and it should be rolled back.  Sufficient time to discuss here should be allowed before it is decided one way or another, however. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems there was some kind of discussion at that page regarding this very same move, at it seems to have ended around August 19 rather abruptly and incompletely. I don't think we need to go back there with this. Perhaps we could put another notice on each city's talk page - but I think its important to remember that the discussion has somewhat evolved into proposals for clear guidelines including the move of these cities rather than only the move of these cities (which seems to have overwhelmingly failed). It may be prudent to make a new template to put on those talk pages specifying this change in the discussion, but also keep in mind that a notice was on those pages for some time, so those watching those pages were certainly aware of this proposal. But as of right now, all discussion on the subject seems to have stopped. It seems that apparently, everyone who wants to chime in has. I'm not sure how to proceed from here, unless it seems like a consensus has been reached for something... Proposal 4 has by far gotten the most attention and support...  Okiefromokla•talk 02:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still.. it hasn't been that long since discussion stopped here. Maybe a little more time in addition to new templates... Okiefromokla•talk 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a new round of templates would certainly be a good thing, but perhaps the leading proposals should be summarized somewhere with a link back to this discussion?--Paul 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, I'm actually up for anything that could get this discussion rolling again or to see some conclusion to it. So I agree. Okiefromokla•talk 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Proceed 

message: Given the fact that the Harry Potter article is about a series of books/movies/games about a character whose full name is Harry James Potter, should the article about the character be at Harry James Potter or at Harry Potter (character)? Note that the full name isn't a spoiler - the middle name is identical to the character's father's first name, which we are introduced to at the beginning. Od Mishehu 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be disambiguated with a word in brackets. The name itself should be the most common one and adding in middle names, maiden names and the like has a tendency to create name forms that don't meet that. Timrollpickering 11:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Timrollpickering --Serge 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper name for article which is out of its best place due to ambiguity 

message: What is the favoured way of spelling Mr. Langenhoven's name - Google searches favour Bratley, MSN.com searches favour Bradley, Metacrawler has roughly the same, Yahoo massively favours Bradley, Official RWC site Bratley, scrum.com Bradley, Namibian RU Bradley. Which way does it go? --Montchav 12:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bratley Langenhoven]]/[[Bradley Langenhoven]] 

message: WP:NAME#Album and song titles and band names says to uncapitalise conjunctions such as "and", "but", "or" etc. Does this also apply to abbrevations of conjunctions such as the "N" in Guns N' Roses and Chicken-N-Beer? Or should they be left capitalised as a pronoun? Spellcast 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say they are conjunctions, so it does apply. That's what I argued when I moved of Sweet Child O' Mine to Sweet Child o' Mine (see Talk:Sweet Child o' Mine#Why has the page been moved?). For reference, there is a discussion about changing the current capitalization scheme at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#capitalisation of band names. --PEJL 05:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjunctions 

message: I felt the tone of the paragraph was too aggressive (or something), so I rewrote some parts of it. I think it's more instructive now, and more clearly reflects policy. Please note that this is just drive-by copyediting; I'm not currently involved in any controversial name argument anywhere or any such. :) Eaglizard 01:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworded the "Controversial names" section 

message: Is there a guideline for how to handle the names of commercial products when the producer decides to change the name of the product? In some cases it seems justified in order to unify past and present; in other cases it seems like WP is being used to extend corporate marketing. Some specific examples to highlight the complexity of the situation:
* id Software's renaming of the Quake engine series to the id Tech series, arguably for the sake of lending credence to their engine technology. Here I think there is a case that the original name should not be changed. In this case, the rationale is that it is anachronistic -- the Quake engines that fall under this naming scheme have no modern context, and nothing from their respective historical periods refers to them as "id Tech". For example, games built with the Quake engine themselves use the phrase "Quake engine". However, some editors have taken it upon themselves to go through articles of that period and replace the phrase "Quake engine" with "id Tech". In actuality, the only engine to actually bear the "id Tech" label from its beginning is the yet-to-be-released id Tech 5.
* Games Workshop's renaming of Warhammer Fantasy Battle to Warhammer: The Game of Fantasy Battles. Here it is essentially the same product, but with newer editions bearing the revised title. While the established customer base uses the old name, new players may only recognize the newer title. I can go either way on this one.
* The GNU Project's re-definition of GCC from GNU C Compiler to GNU Compiler Collection. In this case, the full title and function of the product has changed, but the common name (GCC) is being overloaded to mean two different things: the original product AND the newer, inclusive product. Here, I would lean toward favoring the renaming because it is more inclusive, but at the same time I also have some reservations because, from a notability standpoint, the original meaning has more historical influence and current real-world usage (that is, when most people talk about GCC, they still mean the C Compiler specifically).
While perhaps it is best to handle these on a case-by-case basis, there will inevitably be some controversial subject that prompts irreconcilable differences. Some comments on how to handle such cases would be appreciated. Ham Pastrami 09:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial renaming 

message: I know there is no single "correct" way, but for Wikipedia's sake we should follow a clear set of rules. We have WP:NAME (also stated here) and WP:MUSTARD, which contradict each other by what one excludes. I know this has been discussed before, and I'm not looking for a new discussion. I would just like some clarification.
The following is the conclusion I've reach as to the most agreed-upon set of rules:
Words that are not capitalized:
# Conjunctions
# Articles
# The word to in infinitives
# Prepositions that are four or less letters and not part of a two-word phrasal verb
Exception:
# The first word and last word in the title (or parentheses inside the title) are always capitalized (overrides previous rules)
Am I correct - is this something we all agree to use on Wikipedia? (Again, I am not asking what's the correct way, but the way we do things here.) Please tell me if I'm wrong, if not, (and here's where I do want discussion) we should make all the "policies" say the same or, better yet, have one policy. 
I don't think the problem is we can't agree on one set of rules, no, the problem is a bigger than that... 
This issue has been discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums along with this page. I post this here, because this is where it belong. We need centralized discussion so we're all on the same page. Capitalization of titles is just one example. (All other naming conventions apply.) I also think pages like WikiProject Music's MUSTARD page should have notice at the top saying how it's not an official policy (even though I agree with them) because their rules clash with WP:NAME and can lead to confusion and edit wars. I even see people citing WP:MUSTARD in revert edit summaries or arguments like it's the consensus of all of Wikipedia. Maybe it is, but it's not the current policy. Anytime WikiProjects talk about rules that pertain to all of Wikipedia they should copy directly or provide a link to the policy as it is here. 
I guess what I'm proposing is a new policy (or just an collaborative effort) to merge all similar sets of rules, so that every WikiProject or whatever doesn't have it's own "policy". If there's disagreement, it should be dealt with here or wherever the official policy's talk page is.
Your thoughts? - Rocket000 03:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of titles 

message: I'm thinking about creating a page for a college (American) football player named Kevin Smith. 
Kevin Smith currently links to the article about the director. No problem, right? I just create an article with a less ambiguous name. Trouble is, there's already an article Kevin Smith (American football) about a different American football player.
So, how should I disambiguate this further? Cogswobbletalk 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Middle name/initial is usually the next step.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to find his middle name :-/ Cogswobbletalk 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Year the enter the NFL is usually another option, but since he hasn't done that yet, you could always go with (College American football). But that would require an article name change if/when he enters the NFL. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I didn't want to use "College" for that reason. I took a look at John Smith, and there are a couple of baseball players of that name disambiguated by their position. So I think I'll try Kevin Smith (American football running back) Cogswobbletalk 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good solution. Adding middle names that aren't normally used is not ideal. Another option would be to add the team, but since players nowadays play for more than one team that could be confusing.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I disambiguate the same name in the same field? 

message: Very recently, the Myanmar page was moved to Burma, without any attempt to obtain consensus for the move. This move is being discussed after-the-fact here and here.  I think that naming conventions for country-name articles could be clearer. -- Boracay Bill 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The move from "Myanmar" to "Burma" might lead to calls for moving "People's Republic of China" to "China" as the exact same reasons that were used to justify the move would apply in this case as well. A clearer policy on country names should definitely be discussed. --Polaron | Talk 04:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear naming conventions for country names 

message: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Naming:_concerning_disambiguation
Dyaimz 21:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Albums: concerning disambiguation 

message: Since awards and prizes are awarded by someone they should have a name to them by the person/organisation/company/whatever awarding the prize. The naming convention should reflect this. // Liftarn
:I think this runs deeper than awards and prizes, it goes for institutions, organizations, products, works of art, almost anything that has an official name. Most of the time when something has an official name in English, we use that on Wikipedia in place of the more common name (Academy Award, not Oscar; The Beatles (album), not The white album; etc.). Countries would be an exception (and should be an exception, as long as there's a non-controversial conventional short form to use). But there's not much support for this in policy, and sometimes (as has happened at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics) people use WP:NC(CN) to trump the official name. It's just that this is done very arbitrarily. I think the whole official name vs. common name issue should be stated clearly somewhere, after due discussion of course. -- Jao 09:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, editors have used the excuse that since the title of the article is a common name, then other articles in WP should use the common name in the content of those articles.  This argument then supports completely removing the official name of an award/prize/etc in WP, except for the one article about it, thanks to WP:NAME and WP:NC(CN).  Something seems wrong here. –panda 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the title in the article and what is used in the text body is quite different and that should also be pointed out. // Liftarn
Seeing how no one has objected, does it need further peer review, should we create an article with the proposed changes and link to it, or should we just add this to the article? –panda 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and prizes naming conventions - proposal 

message: Someone has pointed out that there's an inconsistency through different consensus of what the appropriate use of special characters in page names should be. The two prime examples are We Love Katamari and I ♥ Huckabees.  In the former case, it was decided that the heart symbol can be replaced with the word "love" and that while in the body of the text, the title was referred to as "We ♥ Katamari", the page name, for accessibility reasons should be kept without special characters.  In the case of Huckabees, the consensus came to the conclusion that the trade name of the movie is with the heart symbol, and thus it should stay at the heart symbol version.  (Of course, the alternative version of both have redirects, so its not a matter of finding the information).
While the current scheme does suggest that symbols like that should be replaced per "use English", the fact that we have at least two articles that vary is causing some people to use one as the rule to adjust the other, or so on.
Should there be a more consistent approach to this? --MASEM 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistancy of special characters in article names 

message: I think that this page has become too long to be really useful. Would you think about changing the layout of the page, for example taking out all the summaries (except for the general NC guidelines) and grouping the subNCs by subject rather than alphabetically, maybe in a table format or in a more clean and aerated format such as in Help:Contents? Thank you. CG 19:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the format of the page 

message: Is there a convention on what country name to put as person's place of birth? Two conflicting examples are: George Washington (having historic name: Westmoreland County, Colony and Dominion of Virginia, British America) and Constantine Karamanlis (having current name Proti, Serres, Greece (historic would be Ottoman Empire)). Is there a naming convention about this? --78.1.98.197 14:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of former countries in biographical articles 

message: There are many pages about ethic groups in non-indigious place, e.g. 
*Vietnamese Canadian, Chinese Canadian, Russian American, Russian British 
*Canadians of American origin 
*Canadians of Filipino descent 
*Canadians of Hungarian ancestry 
*Chinese people in Japan 
*Russians in Ukraine 
*German minority in Poland 
*German settlement in Argentina. 
From time to time, on a one-off basis, these pages are proposed for renaming (e.g. Talk:Vietnamese Czechs#Requested move). Is there a standard for this kind of page? If not, could we start creating a standard for this kind of page? Ewlyahoocom 05:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Y-Xers vs X people in Y vs ??? 

message: There is a recent video game called "skate." (without quotes, that's the trademarked title).  The page for it has seen a series of moves from skate. to "Skate." to "skate (video game)" to "skate. (video game)"  and I think a couple other variations on those.  It's not obvious from the NC which version is most appropriate: if the period and lowercase lettering are to be avoided, then "Skate (video game)" would make the most sense, while if those are allowed the current location skate. is appropriate.  Obviously we can redir from other variations to the main one but it would be best to have a bit of assurance which is the correct way to go with it. --MASEM 15:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-special but non alpha/numeric character in trademark title 

message: Just looking for some neutral advice on the following case. Ok, to sum up what I am asking:
:"Ireland" is the name of an island in Western Europe, previously part of the UK, now only a portion is.
:The same name ("Ireland") is used to refer to the now-independant State. It is therefore located at Republic of Ireland (an official description, but just "Ireland" is very often used)
My interpretation of WP:NC is that this dictates "Ireland" should be a disambig, by policy. However most (or certainly, too many) views on the discussion of naming are based on general opinions (such as things like "Ireland has been used as a name for the island, for longer than the state has existed. So the island should have precedence" - clearly wouldn't be backed up by policy) so I would like to see what others think, who are basing their opinions entirely on the policy. I'll also just point out there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of links to "Ireland" which refer to the State (and so should link to "Republic of Ireland") since novice users may not be aware of where the articles are located.
The reason I'm posting here, is because anyone on this page, has presumably just looked at the actual policy (and are hopefully approaching it with a NPOV since they may be unaware of the problem). - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find a discussion with a similar theme at Talk:Newfoundland_(island)#Newfoundland_redirect:_Island_vs_Province and Talk:Newfoundland_and_Labrador#redirection. Ewlyahoocom 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for (neutral) advice 

message: Could anybody tell me please, what is this moving warning about "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding." Please explain me exactly, what drastic and unexpected change(or changes) might accur with such a popular page? Toasker (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, for example, Burma and Talk:Burma -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MediaWiki:Movepagetext]] 

message: As indicated by  at Talk:FC Steaua Bucureşti#Requested move and by  at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Naming conventions and club names, the naming convention for sports teams was added by  back in June. It appears that this occurred without prior discussion, that no consensus had been sought or formed. Because of my own involvement in this discussion/dispute, I obviously won't touch the section myself. But in view of the discussions, should the section be hidden from view until a consensus has been formed? AecisBrievenbus 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should defenetly be removed if it was added without the community's consensus. Everything added should be discussed and be approved by the community's consensus not unilaterally by one user's decision. —dima/talk/ 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be deleted immediately while we come up with a more comprehensive policy. As the recent moves of FC Dynamo Kyiv to FC Dynamo Kiev and FK Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade demonstrate, unfortunately some over-zealous admins are taking advantage of this irrational statement and using it to bypass the consensus of editors. The statement is factually incorrect from the get go. It reads, "For example, Sporting Clube de Portugal are always called Sporting Lisbon in the English-speaking world." Well during the Manchester United FC-Sporting CP Champions League match the English ESPN announcers (Derek Rae and Tommy Smyth) had no problem calling the Portugese side, "Sporting", "Sporting Clube", or "Sporting Clube de Portugal". They actually made a point in the broadcast that Sporting doesn't like being called Sporting Lisbon and that that particular term is outdated. --Tocino 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, here's my proposal for this issue. I suggest that if the club's official website has an English language version, we should entitle any Wikipedia articles about that club using whatever name is used on the English version of their website. In the event that the club does not have an English language website, we should use the name that the club goes by most commonly in other English language media. Under this proposal, the article that is currently at FC Dynamo Kiev would be located at FC Dynamo Kyiv and FC Bayern Munich would remain where it is, as would FC Steaua Bucureşti, while FC Red Star Belgrade would be at FC Red Star or Red Star Belgrade. For the sake of consistency, in the case of FC Arsenal Kiev, that article should be located at FC Arsenal Kyiv, per FC Dynamo Kyiv. - PeeJay 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports teams 

message: I've come across this really bad maritime disaster that befell the Royal Navy in 1707 - one of the worst in the RN's history.
What happened is that a fleet of RN ships commanded by Rear Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell sailed at night into the rocks around the Scilly Isles. Four capital ships were sunk, three of them going down with all hands, for the loss of somewhere between 1500 and 2000 men.
But here's the weird bit - the event has no name! Because it happened in 1707 when there were few newspapers, and because it was at then end of the day a relatively minor event compared to the continental war that was then raging, it seems never to have been "christened".
There are a couple of Wiki articles on the individual ship sinkings, but it seems to me the obvious thing to do is treat this as a single event. Trouble is, since the event doesn't have a name, any name I give it - like for example the Shovell squadron disaster - is effectively a neologism.
Anyone have a solution to this? Gatoclass 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, WP:COMMONSENSE. However, I assume you do have some sources to extract the material from (otherwise, it would be like User:Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War, see the context). I assume that the sources refer to it somehow. However, I see that the event is, at least partly, covered in HMS Association — why not expand it there rather than making up a title? Duja► 11:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources probably describe it with long, half-sentence descriptors. But why not call it Shovell and the Scilly Isles until you find a better term? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An event with no name 

message: I was editing the album article ...And Everything Reminds Me, just doing some citing, cleanup, etc.  In my spartan search for reliable sources for the album, I came across its listing at Amazon.de, whereupon it's listed with the title all in lowercase.  I thought that odd, especially since other albums at Amazon.de were capitalized expectedly (i.e. it wasn't just a German language thing), so I took a close look at the album art itself--it too had the lowercase titling.  So in addition to working out the article, I moved it from ...And Everything Reminds Me to ...and everything reminds me with an edit summary of "proper capitalization per sourcing".  I was undone in this move by  who moved it back citing WP:NAME#Album and song titles and band names.  We spoke, and he's well in the right per the guideline: I hold no animosity.  But shouldn't specific reliable sourcing coupled with the album itself be considered prevalent?  The redirect would catch any people searching with capitalization, and as far as I can tell, per reliable sourcing the lowercased version is the most common usage.  Thoughts?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia.  One of the purposes to a house style is so people know where to look for articles.  Someone looking for ...And Everything Reminds who knows the style will go to ...And Everything Reminds Me; someone who doesn't know the style is likely to go to one of ...And Everything Reminds Me or And Everything Reminds Me.  Only someone who doesn't know the style and does know how the text appears on the album would go to ...and everything reminds me — and this case could be handled by a redirect.  (This all assumes the current state of affairs in the house style, of course.)  And how far do things go?  The movie poster for 10 Things I Hate about You is printed as 10 things I hate about you — should the article's title reflect that?  Should the band whose name often appears as "KoЯn" have their article under KoЯn (instead of Korn)?  Should we try to match fonts as well?  I think your suggestion and concern are perfectly understandable and reasonable, even though I disagree with your suggestion that there is need for change.  Basically, I think the current state of affairs is both simple and minimizes people being unable to find articles that they are looking for. Alan smithee (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why then are there exceptions, such as I ♥ Huckabees?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The poster lists the film as i ♥ huckabees; the Wikipedia page for the film is I ♥ Huckabees.  Are you suggesting that, because "♥" is not in the English alphabet, that the page should be titled I Heart Huckabees?  Should the article about the Icelandic singer be titled Bjork (instead of Björk)?  Perhaps I'm missing your point ... Alan smithee (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  album art & [[WP:RS]] 

message: There is a current proposal to change a naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed naming convention change 

message: The following articles use the "Numero Sign" character in their titles:
*General Order %E2%84%96 1
*General Order %E2%84%96 11 (1862)
*General Order %E2%84%96 11 (1863)
This symbol does not render correctly for me in the article text on my Mac (except when editing the article), but does render on my PC. Seems like it would be good idea to use "No." instead. Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that WP:MOS#Article_titles says: "Special characters such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), curly brackets ({ }) and square brackets ([ ]) are avoided; the ampersand (&) is replaced by and, unless it is part of a formal name." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Numero Sign in article titles 

message: In the case of the James D. Watson page, it has become a matter of debate whether the most popular name versus the official name should be used when it comes to a page name. Currently,
Wikipedia's policy states that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number 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. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." This may be fine for terms or amimals, or inanimage objects, but when it comes to the names of individuals, shouldn't the legally recognizable name of the individual be used? I have copied a portion of the debate from the Watson page, which is beginning to sound more like an issue that has wider implications for Wikipedia policy than simply the James D. Watson page alone. The debate started when someone suggested a page move from "James D. Watson" to "James Watson" based on Google results. I thought that the contributors to this page might find the debate (below) interesting:
----
 Requested move
_ _ IMO James D. Watson should be renamed to James Watson, with a ToP Dab to James Watson (disambiguation) that begins "This is about the DNA researcher; ....". (This would of course be preceded by a move of the existing James Watson Dab to James Watson (disambiguation).)
_ _ James D. Watson is precluded as the title for his article by WP:UCN: Googling produces
about 30,200 for "James D. Watson" OR "James Dewey Watson" DNA 
vs.
about 474,000 for "James Watson" DNA 
showing a ratio of about 16:1 favoring the shortest form.
_ _ And he also appears to be the primary person meant by "James Watson":
Googling 
"James Watson" actor 
gives 1/4 the hits that 
"James Watson" DNA 
does, even tho the 2nd misses the "James D. Watson" refs, and even tho presumably many of the actor's lks are for minor roles in non-notable films (while JW's mentions in articles that mention DNA are probably at least strong "supporting roles"); and 
"James Watson" 1922 judge 
and 
"James Lopez Watson" are both in the low 4 figures. 
IMO the other James Watsons are less likely to be sought: they are very short, in most case perfunctory, bios, and are linked to by very few other articles. (Note that the many lks to the Calgary mayor are in fact multiple copies, from all the other Calgary mayors, of the lk to him in a templated list of Calgary mayors.) 
Altho Googling 
"James Watson" DNA 
produces just under half the hits of 
"James Watson" -DNA 
most of those more numerous hits fail to bear against the move: 
Of the first 10 hits, 
3 are for the actor, 
3 for James D. Watson (including one purporting to be a page created by him!), 
1 for the 20th-cent. pol, 
1 for a "James Watson Cronin", and 
2 for James Watsons not appearing on the James Watson Dab. 
In the next few Google pages, the proportion of James D. Watson hits increases, and no new James Watson-Dab-page people appear. 
_ _ IMO, i am being overcautious in accepting the advice of a colleague to pursue this via Wikipedia:Requested moves rather than treating it as uncontroversial.
--Jerzy•t 03:35 & 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Reconsideration? Official name versus the most easily recognizable when it comes to the names of PEOPLE 

message: In case anybody is wondering where this is, it is the valley of the Po River; the present title is a calque of the Italian pianura Padana. Would people here mind wieghing in, or we reconsider having article names what English speakers would "most easily recognize"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Padan Plain]] 

message: Happened to discover these manuals today (blue box on right of this article) and that there were several with information about how to write about a certain countries.  In my experience, all hell breaks lose whenever one writes anything perceived as too critical about Israel (and perhaps too nice about Palestinians, or any reference to original names of any land that Israel confiscated from them).  Of course, coming up with such a manual would be hell too, but Wikipedians rush in where angels fear to tread??  My only personal run in with that process was in editing Samson Option and I confess I lost my temper at first. Since then I've run into a lot of articles and certain users whose talk pages illustrated a lot of abuses on this topic.
I noticed the Islam Manuel had a note on not using word "terrorism" freely, so there certainly is a precedent there for some relevant notes.  Also maybe some warnings against canvassing and other strange things that seem to happen when one is foolish enough to try to edit articles with sourced, reliable information that some don't like.  Starting with a warning one is likely to get wikilawyering up the butt if one edits on these topics might be a good, so at least people won't get ticked off immediately or stop editing wikipedia all together in total disgust (which I almost did at one point, and from personal experience with just one article). 
Carol Moore 02:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Supplementary Manuals on Israel and Palestine 

message: Do we include titles or post-nomials in titles? Mbisanz (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Robert A Wild, S.J.]] 

message: Are there any guidelines for namimg/disambiguating articles about newspapers? I'm guessing not:
Many use Name (Place) (The Star (London), The Star (South Africa)) but there's also plenty which use "(newspaper") (Helix (newspaper), The Post (Pakistani newspaper)). --kingboyk (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers 

message: An RFC on content related to this convention has been opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name]] 

message: A Request for Comment about a conflicted name has been opened here: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F. Views from editors involved with naming guidelines and uninvolved with the dispute are encouraged. The Land (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on naming issue 

message: :The New Zealand national rugby union team are almost always referred to as the All Blacks in New Zealand  Where are they not almost always referred to as the All Blacks? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Blacks 

message: Should the number be written in words, or left as is? cf. 3G, 4G 3CCD. My intuition is to use the most common name, but I got into a debate with another editor over this, so I want to know what the guidelines say.--Adoniscik (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech. articles with numbers 

message: Forgive me for bringing this up again, but there seems to be a lack of clarity in our guidelines regarding the use or non-use of the Paris, Texas style for place names. I often come across references to London, England or Paris, France and suchlike. Such usage is highly inappropriate for places in countries where it is not customary. I have read much of the endless debates about the question, but there does not seem to be a clear statement that this practice should be limited to place names in the US (and perhaps Australia, if I am not mistaken). Do we have any policy/style guide/whatever to govern that practice? Kosebamse (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's apparently common in Canada and Mexico, as well.  I also don't think it should be discouraged in other countries where the local disambiguation methods are more ambiguous, such as Great Britain.  But the local diambiguation should be preferred.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The guideline is in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements).  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that had escaped my attention. Kosebamse (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My view on this is that local disambiguation (or lack thereof) should always be preferred. For example, the U.S. "comma convention" arose because those of us here in the States use the "city, state" form to describe cities, especially when they're not universally well-known. For example, we'd say "I have to go to a business meeting in Chicago" or "I have to go to a business meeting in Redding, California". We say "Chicago, Illinois" when we have reason to believe the other person we're talking to doesn't know where Chicago is, and we just say "Redding" if the other person likely knows where that is. In the U.K., they disambiguate by county rather than by constituent country, so an English person might say "Blackburn, Lancashire", but not "Blackburn, England". That's one of many reasons I don't think the U.S.-specific form should be used everywhere. szyslak 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma convention for places outside the US (and perhaps a few other countries) 

message: The naming convention for monarchs has previously been an exception to Wikipedia's general naming conventions.  Efforts are now being made to bring them in line, with a propoasl for the most common name for a monarch to take precedence. (eg. William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Mary, Queen of Scots.)  Please consider the proposals at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Proposals to change Monarchal naming conventions so we can get wide consensus on this matter.  Thanks.  Gwinva (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions: Monarchs 

message: How would you label an article about a person who has changed their name legally, such as
Paul Neumann to Paul Newman? Would you use Paul Newman (Neumann)? Many persons (both living and dead) in America have  anglicised names. What is the proper use on Wikipedia?DavidPickett (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MOSBIO. It pretty well covers how the lead paragraph handles names.--Bobblehead (rants) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal name change(anglicised names) 

message: Current guidelines at WP:WikiProject Numismatics that call for currency articles to be at their native rather than English names appear to be an attempt to supersede WP:UE and WP:UCN.  Please discuss proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style#Guidelines change proposal.   —  AjaxSmack  23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency name guidelines 

message: The pounds per square inch article is one of those included in the WP:RM proposal, with a notice on its talk page.  But if you look at Talk:Pounds per square inch this article has already been improperly moved in a cut and paste move from Pound-force per square inch.  That is the singular form to which that specific article should now be moved, not pound per square inch.  With the normal cleanup merging the histories from the previous improper cut and paste move.
Note that there are two different units.  This article is about lbf/in² (also called psi), where the pounds are units of force.  But the unit lb/in²  where pounds are the normal mass units are also used.  Not as often as the pressure or stress units of lbf/in² are, but they are still different units and need to be disambiguated.  Those lb/in², distinct and different "pounds per square inch" which are not and should not be covered in this pressure unit article, are used, for example, in ballistic coefficient.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just butting in here to comment that the NIST Guide to SI Units has this as "pound-force per square inch". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to move it back to its proper location and merge the two histories?  If not I would suggest simply doing a new copy-paste move with a note in the talkpage where to look for the new information.  I still don't see how people get this wrong, there's a damn button that says move at the top of every article.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific different target for Pounds per square inch

message: Since the letter of the policy seems to be the thorn that keeps the mile-per-hour folks from sleeping at night, why not re-word the policy to something more reasonable? Just add the word "almost" in front of "always". After all, "always" is a big conditional; where did consensus for that come from? Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update the guideline

message: Does Wikipedia have a policy on what should be done with a stadium, sports league or team which sells/leases its naming rights to a corporate entity?  I believe that Wikipedia should use the "regular name" (if the entity actually has one) and sponsored names should be redirects - as this way, should the naming rights pass on to another company, we do not have to change hundreds of links.  Where would be the best place to discuss this? -- Chuq (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsored names 

message: There's an argument at talk:Futurology over what that article should be called, and whether this policy applies.  Your opinion there would be appreciated.  The Transhumanist    03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futurology or Futures studies? 

message: I've requested a page move of Associação Académica de Coimbra to the English "common" translation Coimbra Academic Association in line with e.g. National Alliance of Student Organizations in Romania and Uppsala Student Union, adding a series of sub-page moves to reflect the move of the principal article (such as Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Voleibol → Coimbra Academic Association - volleyball section. 
The responses I've got (from Portuguese editors) has been that e.g. Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Voleibol is the official and "correct" name. Now, the problem is that I'm not sure if the AAC student union has an English common name. Coimbra Academic Association get 12700 english hits and "Coimbra Academic Association" get only 240 english hits on Google , while "Associação Académica de Coimbra" get 540 english hits (even though one might suspect that a large portion of these are about the football club). Does this mean that the AAC doesn't have an English common name or that the common name should be interpreted as "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" (from WP:COMMON). Don't forget to also comment on the move page! Sebisthlm (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English (common?) name v. official foreign name 

message: ===Names according to the official languages and order===
I have one or two suggestions to make, regarding the names related to the Republic of Kosovo, which recently declared independence from Serbia. 
First of all, it has been agreed that the two official languages are Albanian and Serbian. You could verify this. You could also verify that Albanians make up the majority of the population (some 92 or 93%). Therefore, it has been agreed that Albanian language be the primary language. For this reason, all names related to Kosovo should be reflected in the Albanian language, and optionally followed by the Serbian language. While I am aware that the English-speaking world may be most acquainted with the non-diacritic Serbian version of the names, Wikipedia should respect both official languages in the order: Albanian/Serbian.
Respecting the aforementioned suggestion has several advantages. First, it will characterize the (English) Wikipedia as a neutral system. That is, neither Albanians, nor Serbians would cause confusion and trouble by editing articles according to subjective points of view. In the end, everybody will be satisfied because that is the reality. Second, it will allow us, the users, to focus more on developing articles, rather than spending a lot of time discussing whether the nomenclature should be in Serbian or in Albanian and in what order. For instance, if you compare the "Article Page" of a particular Kosovo-related article with the respective "Discussion Page", then you will immediately notice that the latter is much longer than the former, which shows that users spend much more time talking than actually being interested in results.
All in all, using the two official languages, Albanian and Serbian, and in the official order: Albanian names followed by Serbian names, would bring neutrality to Kosovo-related articles along with several advantages.--Arbër 09:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to WP:NCON. Basic rule is still: WP:USEENGLISH. Where there is a clearly dominant usage in the English language, that takes precedence. Only if that fails does the question of native and official names kick in. If and when English usage outside Wikipedia is going to change because of the independence, then Wikipedia will follow suit, but not earlier. For instance, all the media still talk about Kosovo, not Kosova. They might change that at some later point, but we won't take a step ahead of them in anticipation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From your answer, I understand that Wikipedia is prepared for such changes :) - that's quite important to learn.--Arbër (Let's Talk) 11:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo, the newborn state 

message: I have one or two suggestions to make, regarding the names related to the Republic of Kosovo, which recently declared independence from Serbia. 
First of all, it has been agreed that the two official languages are Albanian and Serbian. You could verify this. You could also verify that Albanians make up the majority of the population (some 92 or 93%). Therefore, it has been agreed that Albanian language be the primary language. For this reason, all names related to Kosovo should be reflected in the Albanian language, and optionally followed by the Serbian language. While I am aware that the English-speaking world may be most acquainted with the non-diacritic Serbian version of the names, Wikipedia should respect both official languages in the order: Albanian/Serbian.
Respecting the aforementioned suggestion has several advantages. First, it will characterize the (English) Wikipedia as a neutral system. That is, neither Albanians, nor Serbians would cause confusion and trouble by editing articles according to subjective points of view. In the end, everybody will be satisfied because that is the reality. Second, it will allow us, the users, to focus more on developing articles, rather than spending a lot of time discussing whether the nomenclature should be in Serbian or in Albanian and in what order. For instance, if you compare the "Article Page" of a particular Kosovo-related article with the respective "Discussion Page", then you will immediately notice that the latter is much longer than the former, which shows that users spend much more time talking than actually being interested in results.
All in all, using the two official languages, Albanian and Serbian, and in the official order: Albanian names followed by Serbian names, would bring neutrality to Kosovo-related articles along with several advantages.--Arbër 09:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Names according to the official languages and order

message: In addition to the suggestion I made above, I have another important suggestion related to the URL's of Wikipedia. Let's take an example of a Kosovo-related page, which has the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C4%87_District. As you may notice, the name "Peć", which appears as "Pe%C4%87" in the URL, is the Serbian name for the Kosovan city of "Pejë", the Albanian name. At this point, Wikipedia is not respecting Albanian as the primary and official language, given that Serbian is the second official language of the Republic of Kosovo. I believe a drastic change has to be made to all Wikipedia URL's which use a Serbian nomenclature instead of an Albanian one. Because Albanian is the primary language of Kosovo, all Wikipedia URL's should be in the Albanian language.--Arbër 09:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to WP:NCON. Basic rule is still: WP:USEENGLISH. Where there is a clearly dominant usage in the English language, that takes precedence. Only if that fails does the question of native and official names kick in. If and when English usage outside Wikipedia is going to change because of the independence, then Wikipedia will follow suit, but not earlier. For instance, all the media still talk about Kosovo, not Kosova. They might change that at some later point, but we won't take a step ahead of them in anticipation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From your answer, I understand that Wikipedia is prepared for such changes :) - that's quite important to learn.--Arbër (Let's Talk) 11:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of the URL's are ONLY in Serbian language - this is wrong

message: I find the outcome of this AfD to be counter to everything suggested in WP:NPOV. It basically states that having words like "important" in the title of an article is not only acceptable, but preferred. IMO there should be an explicit naming policy against this. The relevance of "importance" is already covered against WP:N. The article should have been given either a keep or delete, the rename was a really lame copout in contradiction of fundamental policies. And it's being used as precedent. See the justification for the renaming of List of publications in computer science. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value judgments are preferred in article names? 

message: Is the title of the article compliant with the naming conventions? I don't think so, but can't move the article. --Blueredsky (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the theatre's own website uses the English name National Theatre of Iceland rather than "Thodleikhusid" — and, for the record, a ð in Icelandic is a lowercase thorn, not a d. I suspect, consequently, that the article should most appropriately be at National Theatre of Iceland. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Þjóðleikhúsið]] 

message: Is IAST spelling allowed as an article name or is the English spelling prefered? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch as this is the English Wikipedia, English is preferred; the IAST spelling should be given parenthetically in the first introductory paragraph. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IAST]]? 

message: This manual of style has been misused to move Bone Thugs-N-Harmony to Bone Thugs-n-Harmony. It may be also interpreted as suggesting to rename Guns N' Roses to Guns and Roses and Tha Dogg Pound to The Dog Pound. Please consider adding a special note to the article to make it clear that this manual does not suggest changing excplicit (mis-)spelling in band and album names to fit English grammar. Netrat_msk (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no meaningful difference to be had between a capital N or a lowercase n in Bone Thugs-n-Harmony; it's purely a difference in how familiar an individual writer is with standard English capitalization rules. You're making a false comparison here to two moves that virtually nobody would ever even try to implement, and that wouldn't last three seconds even if somebody did. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band name 

message: The idea to maximise hits (on search engines) should be a part of the "first article" page. It may not refer to a lot of first articles any more but it would clear up a lot of thinking for newer users.</br>ThisMunkey (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Convention Not Clear 

message: Hello.
At WP:Military history we've run into a snag that we were hoping could be resolved here.  It revolves around operational names and how we should present them as the pagename of the article.  We basically have four alternatives:
Original name                	Transliteration              	Partial translation        	Full translation          	Notes
Fall Weiß                    	Fall Weiss                   	Case Weiss                 	Case White                	
Unternehmen Frühlingserwachen	Unternehmen Fruhlingserwachen	Operation Fruhlingserwachen	Operation Spring Awakening	
Операция Искра               	Operatsia Iskra              	Operation Iskra            	Operation Spark           	
捷号作戦                         	Sho-gō sakusen               	Operation Sho-Go           	Operation Victory         	
ケ号作戦                         	Ke-gō sakusen                	Operation Ke-Go            	Operation Ke              	Uses a simple katakana letter, so no meaning to translate.
Unternehmen Barbarossa       	Unternehmen Barbarossa       	Operation Barbarossa       	Operation Barbarossa      	Being named after a proper noun (Frederick Barbarossa) this wouldn't be translated
|)
Right now we're all over the map so we really need some standardization.  Since we can't come to agreement amongst ourselves, it has been requested that we leave the decision primarily to here.  Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Quite a "snag". I read as far as the first break and didn't have the energy to continue. My choice is a full translation unless it is well-known as a partial translation (e.g. Operation Barbarossa). I assume that there would be redirects from other names and that the article would mention other names. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I vote for the "partial" translation, though I think we will need redirects from the transliterated version. As this is the English Wikipedia I am opposed to articles in non-Latin alphabets anyway. A bit of checking seems to show that the partial version is more common; however there is sure to be some hardhead searching under the transliteration. Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: English Wikipedia, so use as full a translation as possible for the article title.  Other names can be listed in the article.  If the translation is wrong, someone will fix it.  If you can't get it translated then start with what you've got.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive before making any suggestions.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have suggested the partial translation, for instance keep 'Operation' in English (or whatever the corresponding first word is, battle or, or whatever) but have the actual name in the original language, often they are named for places or so on that have the biggest impact in the original language. SGGH speak! 11:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Having looked at the case mentioned, there's a strong note of Romanian partisans trying to own an article about a Russian offensive. If it has to be in the original language, that original language is Russian in this case, since it was after all their offensive; the Romanian should be dismissed out of hand. However, the other problem is that the transliteration from Russian into Latin characters is a little uncertain. The whole Yassy/Jassy ambiguity arises because of a longstanding Latinism that is wont to use an initial "J" to represent a "Y" consonant sound. I personally think this is an archaism and that we should stick to the phonetically obvious "Yassy", redirecting from "Jassy". As for Iassy", that's for the Italian Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (Coming from the Village Pump)  If you can find a standard English-language reference to the operation, I would go for that.  For non-Roman alphabets, my inclination would go for the full translation.  For the Roman alphabet, it's more tricky... Bluap (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military operational names 

message: For example, Frisbee redirect to Flying disc, the former being the common but trademarked name; but Moka pot redirects to Moka Express, where the latter is trademarked and arguably more common.  Seems that the non-trademarked name should be used when there is one but I couldn't find a rule for that.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't clear about where the word "Moka" comes from. Is it simply derived from the brand, as with "Xerox machine"? If so, it should be changed to a truly generic phrase like photocopier. If "Moka pot" is a term that existed prior to the "Moka Express", then yes, change it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't clear to me either, I haven't found anything to suggest that there was a coffee pot called a moka or a moka pot before the Moka Express - nor that there was a pot called something else and the term moka pot is not a term that Bialetti uses to describe their product.  The only dictionary reference to the word I can find is in an online Italian dictionary, here.  I can't read Italian, and it doesn't give an etymology, so I don't know that it would matter.  After all, Frisbee is in Webster's, that doesn't stop it from being trademarked.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a convention on trademarked product names? 

message: It has come up on several agriculture article talk pages from time to time, as well as at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Agriculture, that the name "List of breeds of x" or "List of x breeds"  (where "x" is a species of domestic animal) is cumbersome.  A better naming convention would be "Breeds of x" or "X breeds".  Any thoughts on this?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of the one that I'm aware of that has implemented this is Guinea_pig_breed which is written more like an article than a list (partly because there aren't that many breeds).  This could be a model for the other species, though with only the lead for each breed.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There is further discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#Breed_lists and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#More_about_Breed_Lists.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. One additional advantage of removing the word "list" from the title is being able to add additional content, particularly if the individual breed in question doesn't have much related content. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should the articles be named in the style Breeds of goats or Goat breeds.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of Breeds 

message: Question- I'm looking at all of the US policy articles (Fiscal policy in the United States, Energy policy in the United States, United States trade policy, Monetary policy of the United States), and I'm planning on making a template for them all and at least one more article I plan on making (Agricultural policy).  What is the naming convention for these types of articles?  Should I make them consistent or leave them as they are? johnpseudo 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy "of" the United States or Policy "in" the United States 

message: I removed the Phillipines section  because it appears to be an action from a WP:SOCK sockpupeteer to override this policy, including naming one of his socks as authority on the naming convention . For more information, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon --Enric Naval (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine radio stations naming 

message: Which rules do we use for the name of an ethnic group , like that of Assyrian people? I found Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#Widely_accepted_name helpful, but it says this method is used for geographical identification. Can we use those rules for the proper naming of an ethnic group? Chaldean (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which rules to use? 

message: How about the Araw ng Kagitingan article, in view of the WP:MOS#Foreign terms style guideline? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sometimes called "Day of Valor" (see Public holidays in the Philippines). Officially, it's "Araw ng Kagitingan - (Bataaan and Corregidor Day)" (see this). For a partial list of english-language Philippine newspapers, see this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Araw ng Kagitingan]] 

message: I've been advised to come here for advice. I'm trying to create a WikiProject for Mills, and want to establish a format for article names. With many mills sharing the same name, I'd prefer the style of the title to be [Mill Name, Location], thus Beacon Mill, Benenden and not St. Martin's Mill, which I originally named as St. Martin's Windmill, Canterbury. What do other editors think about this proposal? Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed naming convention for articles about individual mills 

message: Which one of these pages is titled correctly (if either)? : List of minor Foundation universe characters and List of minor Foundation-universe planets? —ScouterSig 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the former. Plrk (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which one? 

message: There are two different retail chains, both with the name Bealls. Their pages are currently at Bealls (Texas) and Bealls (Florida). Personally, I think they should be moved to something like Bealls (Texas-based retailer) and Bealls (Florida-based retailer), respectively, so as to conform with naming conventions. Am I crazy for proposing this, or should I just go ahead and rename? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? If they are the only two meanings for "Bealls", then the placename is all that's needed to differentiate, surely? PamD (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: Most of the main WikiProject templates are named "Template:WikiProject Xxxxx". Some times I see "Template:WPXxxx". Which is the correct naming convention? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject template naming 

message: I don't see that WP:NCI has ever established widespread consensus, and it is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. (A much narrower page about transsexual identification, which seems to be the main intent of the page, would be far less objectionable.) I don't think, therefore, that this page should link to it. The best place for comment would seem to be its talk page.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity 

message: It might confuse people into thinking this page is a style guideline...it's not, it's policy.  I'll post this question on a few non-style-guideline pages, and if there's no objection, I'll remove it from all non-style-guideline pages. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objection to removing the style sidebar? 

message: According to WP:Naming Conventions, it would be best to move the article to Mahatma Gandhi, as this is the common name for the person in India and abroad. N0 one calls him Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. People call him Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi is appropriate because we use Bill Clinton to refer to William Jefferson Clinton and Le Corbusier to refer to Charles-Édouard Jeanneret. Nikkul (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to Mahatma Gandhi 

message: I've been editing the anti-Americanism article. I've been looking at some other anti-national sentiment articles, that were mentioned in the (archived) Talk pages of the article. They all tend to push POV on political matters. The anti-Japanese article, for example, has a section on whaling protests, calling the opposition to whaling racism against Japanese . Meanwhile, the anti-Americanism article cites a protest against a US military base, in the wake of Marines raping a child, as an example of anti-Americanism. (The article has a "Discrimination" sidebar that comes and goes, and includes anti-Americanism in the same category as racism, slavery, and genocide.) All of this is interpreting and labeling the views of other people and societies, often negatively, on political matters. Usually, an "anti-XYZ" term has a pejorative connotation, implying bias. However, people do sometimes self-identify as anti-American.
Wikipedia should not label people as anti-[national sentiment]. It should discuss the fact that people have opinions about anti-Americanism, and discuss people who self-identify as such. That can be neutral. Other labeling--anti-Mexican sentiment (the article suggests concern with illegal immigration is prejudice against Mexicans ....), anti-Japeanese sentiment, etc--is just POV pushing, usually with a negative innuendo, often about living people and cultures.
A related policy:
Naming conventions (identity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28identity%29
I propose anti-[nationality] labeling following the same guidlelines, pretty much for the same reasons. From that page:
Where there is doubt, aim for neutrality.
* Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders. Life.temp (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-[National Sentiment] Guidelines 

message: The talk page for Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 contains a debate about the inclusion of airliner names in mid-air collision articles. In this article is an entry about the collision between Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 and DHL Flight 611. However, though most mid-air collision articles feature year and location to identify the collision (for collision between two commercial airliners as opposed to collisions between one commercial airliner and one general aviation aircraft, which has the name of only the commerical airliner), there is no accepted norm in Wikipedia. Thus, I am requesting a naming convention to be created for Aviation Accidents, and more importantly, mid-air collisions. --Vreddy92 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airplane Accidents and Crashes 

message: Please come over to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Burmese) and state whether or not you would like to approve our naming conventions. We don't have many, so it won't take much of your time. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, we won't bite. Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions (Burmese) 

message: Should the name of each of the Provinces of Ecuador include the extra marks, such as ñ, á, etc. The CIA world factbook list the 24 provinces without any extra marks, as in: Azuay, Bolivar, Canar, Carchi, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, El Oro, Esmeraldas, Galapagos, Guayas, Imbabura, Loja, Los Rios, Manabi, Morona-Santiago, Napo, Orellana, Pastaza, Pichincha, Santa Elena, Santo Domingo de los Tsachilas, Sucumbios, Tungurahua, Zamora-Chinchipe. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provinces of Ecuador 

message: Where can I find out about title qualifiers, e.g. Article Title (qualifier)? dorftrottel (talk)  18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're called disambiguators in Wikipediese. See Wikipedia:Disambiguator. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  indexation 

message: There are two songwriter-guitarists with the name Al Anderson: Al Anderson (NRBQ) and Al Anderson (The Wailers). However, I'm not sure if this naming convention is acceptable. Would it be more acceptable if they were Al Anderson (rock musician) and Al Anderson (reggae musician), respectively, or is the existant naming just fine? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Difficult to disambiguate: some examples. In view of that, both Al Anderson (NRBQ) and Al Anderson (The Wailers) appear acceptable to me. Al Anderson (rock musician) and Al Anderson (reggae musician) might be acceptable too, though. Guidance has no straightforward answer here, I'm afraid: it comes down to a consensus of editors, basing themselves on general principles like broad recognisability of the disambiguator, KISS, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reggae one already has "reggae, rock" as his genres in the infobox. What happpens if NRBQ then have a reggae phase? The NRBQ one should have a disam hatnote, like the Wailers one, then we're sorted. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this acceptable? 

message: Hello.  I just noticed a conflict between a guideline on this page and one at Korean naming conventions.  The example used on this page for "People" is the UN Secretary General.  It states his name should follow Western name order, "Ki-moon Ban."  The method outlined in Wikipedia's Korean naming conventions is the exact opposite, "Ban Ki-moon".  In my experience, it is this latter method that is used on nearly all Wikipedia articles, both in titles and contents.  In fact, it's the method used for Mr. Ban's article; "Ki-moon Ban" is just a redirect.  This conflict of info could be quite confusing, especially for new editors or those without experience editing articles about Korean subjects. :) Thanks for your time.  --hamu♥hamu (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood - the example is given as an example of the problem, not of the solution - note it gives both methods. Editors are directed to Korean naming conventions for the solution. --GRuban (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I did misunderstand!  I see some rewording has been done.  Thanks so much for addressing this. :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict between this page and WP:NC-KO 

message: (also posted at VPP) I'm not sure I can fully keep up with everything that's going on regarding moves of tennis players, but the main discussion seems to be here. The question is whether foreign tennis players' names should include diacritics. In any case I think we badly need a general policy on such matters, so it isn't decided separately (and likely inconsistently) for every sport or particular line of activity.--Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Current guidance: WP:UE#Modified letters (that is, after a lot of rejected guidance, including Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) - unless for those tennis players that are also Nordic demi-gods, in which case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) might apply ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diacritics in tennis 

message: See the new proposal Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics. "For a placename or person that is well known in the English-speaking world, i.e. is widely mentioned in English-language sources: ... " --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics 

message: Up until  7 October 2004 this page carried a top note that said
:One of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
This was
removed
by user:UninvitedCompany and relpaced with :Category:Wikipedia official policy. On 12 May 2005 user: Radiant! removed the category and added a  top box.
Before this became policy the page used to say "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages." so the current name was appropriate, but once it became policy the name is not as clear as it could be. I suggest that it is changed to either Naming convention or Naming policy with or without "Article" or "Page" in front (eg as an alternative Article naming policy). If there is a consensus to alter the name the I suggest we put it up to a "requested move" with the various options that emerge from this conversation to determine what the name should be. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Article naming policy" seems best to me ... if you can be bothered to change a long-standing name. Tony (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to the page name 

message: Once the name has been change, the first paragraph "Naming conventions are a list of guidelines on how to create and name pages ..." should be rewritten to explain this page is policy and that it should be interpreted with the three content policies to determine the appropriate name for a Wikipedia article page. We do not place in the three content policies sentence at the start of them such as "These policy rules are not carved in stone." to undermine the authority of the policies, nor should we do so here. 
Also a clear distinction should be made between this policy page and the guidelines that explain this policy (as we do for the content policies).
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to first paragraph

message: I did not mean to deceive anybody. I made a proposal which seemed to me harmless and mildly beneficial, if of no great consequence. I waited, and seeing no objection, I inserted it. ItThe text about reliable sources seemed to me essentially commonplace, to be expanded by WP:DASH in the same manner other guidelines expand this page.  Now that there is objection, I will limit my discussion to this:
I don't see that the present text of WP:DASH, quoted above, is a "long-established" or definite line at all; it offers no method of deciding questions except those parallel to its handful of cases. If it did, we would not have had  this discussion about one of the most common and invariable cases of hyphenation. 
If it is a clear convention, what does it say about African-American?    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am making progress with some informal, private mediation.  I keep worrying that we don't have enough people to do the jobs that need doing, and it pains me that people who know as much as Tony and Sept know have to spend time dealing with stuff like this.  I would like for all of us (whoever "us" is) to agree to (pardon the psychobabble) "boundaries", things that we shouldn't have to worry about facing when we get up in the morning and pull up our watchlists. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I have read what Sept wrote above, and my position hasn't changed: we have said for a long, long time that hyphens mean "and" and en-dashes mean something else.  I think that Sept made a change to policy when he should have known that his change didn't have consensus.  However, this is what feuds do to people: issues start to look black and white, and anything that opposes the other side starts to look like a good idea.  I am totally willing to forgive and forget, as long as I can get some reasonable concessions from both sides to reduce the antagonism. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyphens mean "and" and en-dashes mean something else. Even this would be an improvement; WP:DASH doesn't say that either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I've noticed that there is a slight lack of consistency in the naming of cuisine articles. Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink we're pretty much agreed upon that XXX cuisine should be the standard with exceptions when the adjective is too ambiguous, such as American cuisine. I've created a proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (cuisines) to address the issue.
Peter Isotalo 09:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuisines 

message: This might be more of an issue for MOS:TM, but there are a number of technology-related articles with nonstandard capitalization that probably need to be straightened out. Just as other trademarks are to use standard capitalization, so should TeX, LaTeX, and related articles, as well as NeXT (and GRiD Compass, an article I created myself when I was less policy-aware, now moved). I recently moved the first two to Tex (typesetting system) and Latex (markup language), leaving intact a discussion of the "official" way to write these two names (it's worse, actually; their creators generally insist on a logo being used, as mentioned in the document). These moves were very quickly reverted by User:EmilJ with the comment WP:UCN "Use the most common name of a person or thing" and WP:NC "items ... should have standard capitalization". The standard capitalization is LaTeX. TeX and LaTeX are *never* *ever* referred to as Tex in English. This seems a rather obvious misunderstanding of the policy, but I thought I'd bring this up here first.
Just as Wikipedia doesn't burden itself with the likes of REALTOR, there's no reason for silly and attention-grabbing capitalization to be indulged for the likes of software products; "LaTeX" is pronounced "latex"; "NeXT" is pronounced "next".  ProhibitOnions (T) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a wonderful example.  I'm guessing this will remain a counterexample to the guidance at WP:MOSTM, because I think academics and web designers aren't going to give up on TeX and LaTeX.  But I'm guessing it's not a counterexample to WP:MOSCAPS, because I expect that newspapers and magazines use TeX and LaTeX ... am I wrong?  There's nothing in NYTM or AP Stylebook. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: LaTeX is not pronounced "latex", BTW. (And the capitalization of "TeX" was itself chosen to distinguish it from "Tex" and "TEX", and LaTeX likewise is unrelated to latex.)   shreevatsa (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. That's why we have disambiguation, and for that matter, normal capitalization of proper nouns. FWIW, there's a German textiles company that styles itself TeX, as well. It's quite simple: we are not beholden to idiosyncratic capitalization. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you read the policy, you'll find that ECMAScript, OpenOffice.org, gDesklets, PyGTK, and probably wxWidgets are fine the way they are; this is a straw man argument. We could, indeed, consider a guideline for terms that originated as lowercase computer prompt commands, such as troff. However, our current policy has been discussed at great length; this is a general encyclopedia, and there's no good reason for showy capitalization of words that are not acronyms, but pronounced as written. ProhibitOnions (T) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like peeling an onion... WP:MOSTM states that in the case of trademarks (specifically) that the use of camelcase is up to the author.  WP:CAPS, however, recommends Chicago as a "recommended reference works for capitalization conventions".  Chicago says in §8.163 "Company or product names with an internal capital immediately following, and followed by, a lowercase letter should be left unchanged…"  So, IMHO, LaTeX is correct, assuming it is, in fact, a trademark. Livitup (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that language from CMS gets at the capital X at the end of "LaTeX."  Croctotheface (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of tech trademarks, again 

message: This is a rare occasion on which I agree with Philip Baird Shearer's approach. Tony (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  strengthening of the intro 

message: Over on the Spore (2008 video game) page, we're having a rather winded discussion about where the page should reside.
Obviously, we already have Spore in general, so it can't be there.  To make matters tricky, we have three existing video games from different years all called "Spore", but by and large, the 2008 game is most likely what people will be searching for (at least within the next year) when they type in "spore video game" into the search bar.  Hatnotes are present to point to the other two Spore video games, and presently Spore (video game) is a mini-disambiguation page for the three games.
There are two concerns here. 
# Should the 2008 game be at "Spore (2008 video game)" (as per preciseness), or, due to the fact that it is the most common video game to be searched for, be at "Spore (video game)"?  The page agrees with the former, but there's a few that believe the latter is the better solution.
# If the page stays at "2008 video game", should the current disambig page at "Spore (video game)" actually be a redirection to the 2008 game (as it is the most common uses of "spore video game" or remain a disambiguation page?
Additional input will be helpful to resolve the dispute. --MASEM 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RM – the procedure is explained on that page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Spore (video game) shouldn't be a disambiguation page, mini or otherwise.  It should be an article or a redirect.  If it's a redirect to Spore (disambiguation), it'd be a .  If it becomes a redirect to Spore (2008 video game), then, yes, I'd move Spore (2008 video game) to Spore (video game), but that's not mandatory.  If there's consensus at the page for one way or the other, that's sufficient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My biggest problem is that I never had an opportunity to participate in the discussion, a discussion which very few people participated in, for the reason that there was no attempt to seek outside input, there was no "move discussion tag", so if you didn't go to the talk page, you had no way of being involved. It wasn't a real discussion, and there wasn't a real consensus. The only real reason not to put it at (video game) is the inconvenience. However, if it's moved and the redirects are repaired, nothing is harmed. (video game) is going to redirect to the disambig or the video game. The disambig isn't a likely scenario, since it would logically redirect to a specific video game. If it's (video game), it's going to go to the Spore PC article anyway. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to state that A Link to the Past is the only person who has said it should be moved back all the others on the topic don't see any reason to move it back. Main argument for the page to stay where it is. Is that there is two other games named Spore and now all of them can be easilly separated from just the page tittle making mistakes almost null. This still doesn't seem to be good enough explanation for A Link to the Past who states that his opinion is the right as he thinks that it would be more beneficial to Wikipedia to have the game under "Spore (video game)" even if its makes posibility to mistakes. His saying that the main reason why people are against him is "inconvenience" is wrong they are against his suggestion as it wont benefit the page at all as its now more clearly identified from the two other games. I only wrote this as A Link to the Past seems to mistaken of the reasons why his suggestion is not widely accepted. Also what would be harmed if the "Spore (video game)" would just be redirect like it earlier was before some nameless individual made it to disambiguation page a deed that A Link to the Past blames on the people who vote for the move but wasn't even made by them. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's some relevant, actionable history (like an AN/I or other review), please stop discussing A Link to the Past and just discuss the application of the Naming Conventions to the various Spore articles.  Since there's a disambiguating phrase in the article title, it really won't matter much whether the dab phrase is "(video game)" or "(2008 video game)"; Wikipedia regulars might be tempted to try tacking on "(video game)", but most casual visitors won't, so they'll have to take the same path to the game regardless.  Since Spore has a hatnote that directs 2008 video game seekers to the 2008 video game, it is even unlikely that regulars will need to bother with it. I've cleaned up Spore (disambiguation) and boldly redirected to Spore (video game) to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The existence of a possibility for mistake is not relevant if the possibility of the mistake occurring is extremely minimal. Like JHunter said, if it's going to redirect to (2008 video game) anyway, nothing is changed. If Spore (video game) is about the PC game, and has a disambig note at the top, it's going to result in the same as if it were at 2008 video game - no matter what happens, if a user goes to Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game), they will end up at the PC game. If it's harmful for the PC Spore to be at (video game), it should be harmful for that to redirect to (2008 video game). The way it can be seen is that if any harm exists, both situations will have an equal level of harm, and if there is no other factor in deciding where it should be, it shouldn't matter - the only thing that has to be asked then is "is it necessary to give it a longer title?" To many VG users, (video game) is a common disambig after a video game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with JHunterJ's course of action; Spore (video game) should not be a disambiguation page when its three items could easily be integrated in Spore (disambiguation). I didn't find the anchor that necessary, but I think the redirect to the disambiguation page was a good call. Waltham, The Duke of 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested help with a naming problem 

message: I propose that: commonly used redirects that currently link to guidelines describing the naming conventions, should be altered to redirect to the appropriate sections in this policy page. For example WP:COMMON should redirect to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things, rather than to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). This will allow it a clear distinction to be made between the naming conventions as policy and the naming conventions' guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions redirects 

message: :Add any other alternative names at the bottom of the Survey in chronological order
====No move remain at: Naming conventions====
#Support: leave well enough alone. It does contain several conventions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: #Support most succinct name --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support: leave well enough alone. It does contain several conventions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No move remain at: Naming conventions

message: #Support name that clarifies the issue with the minimum change of name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to: Naming convention

message: :#Support most succinct name --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to: Article naming policy

message: #Support ultra-most succinct name ;)  WP:V isn't called "Verifiability policy", WP:CIVIL isn't called "civility policy" etc.  The name change might make it more clear that this applies to the article name only, and not per se the names used in article bodies, though of course it influences those decisions. Knepflerle (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to: Article naming

message: A naming convention discussion for how to name franchise articles is taking place here. If anyone is interested, please come and give your input. LA (T) @ 23:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchise article naming convention discussion 

message: Hi. There's a suggestion and the beginnings of a discussion here about a consistent way to name articles that address relations between two countries. Input would be appreciated; or should the thread be moved somewhere here? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles addressing relations between two countries 

message: A while back, I moved the page to Sugarland (duo), based on the fact that a duo is not a band. This move went uncontested for months until User:Ericorbit moved it back citing naming conventions. I don't see anywhere in naming conventions that says that a musical group's page has to end in (band) if needed — two members do not a band make. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I based my decision on the massive sweep done months (years?) ago which made just about all musical acts with more than one person needing disambiguation to "(band)".  I know that when I first started editing in WP there were many pages with all types of descriptors: "(group)" or "(girl group)" or "(dance music act)", etc.  I assumed (I suppose incorrectly) that there was something concrete written about musical acts being labeled "(band)" in order to keep things uniform.  One example I gave to TPH was TLC (band) — hardly a "band" per se, but that particular disambiguation description keeps it in conformity to other musical-artist-related articles.  I find a bit of a flaw with the line of thinking that a "duo" is not a "band".  I believe a band can most certainly have as little as two people.  For example, if someone wrote a best selling novel titled The White Stripes, I would expect the disambiguation of the music article to be "The White Stripes (band)", not "The White Stripes (duo)".  Anyone else have thoughts on the matter or have TPH and I missed a prior conversation about this issue? - eo (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen a duo referred to as a band. Not Brooks & Dunn, Montgomery Gentry, Sugarland, not The Judds. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "band" sounds like more than two (in a way that "group" doesn't).  The relevant section of WP:NAME,  Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_and_song_titles_and_band_names, says "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using (band), (album), or (song) (such as Anthrax (band) or Insomniac (album))" but goes on to say "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using (composition) or (instrumental).".  Using "(duo)" could be seen to be an extension of that logic; perhaps there needs to be a discussion about that exact point (are you happy for a trio to be a "band"?).  It's important that there's a redirect from the "(band)" version.  Slight complication ... I see it was a trio until 2006! Might be best to just relax and leave it at "band", with a redirect from duo, accepting "band" as a wikipedia technical term which has a specific sense of "more than one person doing music together"?  PamD (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with PamD that "duo" would technically make more sense, but has some practical problems.  I would say we should amend the quoted section to also mention that "duo" can be used for the same reasons as "composition" or "instrumental", while in this particular case it has to be band, because it was once a three-piece, and the article is not limited to their period as a duo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sugarland (duo)]] vs. [[Sugarland (band)]] 

message: This page is getting very long and unreadable. Since each section has its own page where the guideline is written in details and editors usually refer to, I don't think that the summaries in this page are really useful or representative of the guideline. Did someone think about collapsing the whole page, leaving only a short one-sentence description for each specific NC? (Wikipedia:Quick directory is close to what I have in mind). 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that this is a good idea. This page is policy and as such the other pages, as guidelines, ought to describe in detail what is said on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but every section links to a more detailed page, and some sections doesn't even have a summary which makes the page very messy. Eklipse (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip is correct on this one; the problem to be fixed is to provide the missing summaries, not delete or near-delete the rest of them! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign of this page 

message: I notice that a lot of categories get renamed from "fooian foos" to "foos in/from foo" (i.e., an adjective gets replaced with a preposition and noun). Is there an equivalent practice/guideline for naming articles? The reason I ask is that I've proposed renaming List of musical intervals to List of intervals in music. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name grammar 

message: I've added Australia in with Central and South America as one of the places where a mix of call signs and station names are used with respect to radio stations. This is for clarity, because it is already the existing practice to name Australian radio station articles in line with the station's name unless their call-sign is particularly well-known (like in the case of 2UE or 4MMM). Australian stations have no requirement to identify themselves on-air by their call-sign, so in many cases, particularly in FM radio, the call-sign is completely unknown to the listening audience. - Mark 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a reasonable clarification to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio station article naming conventions 

message: I would like to propose the notion that countries/nations should take precedence over any sub-national regions or cities in naming of articles. This may seem like a screaming obviousity but there are possible conflicts that can arise out of lack of having this policy, eg. the current debate at Talk:Georgia. The current vote has taken up 97kb so far, and that is not counting the five previous debates on exactly the same issue. Since the debate is currently lingering on the notion that there is a lack of a specific policy which would make Georgia (country) the primary article over Georgia (US state), I thought I would ask and get the general feeling around introducing such a policy to the naming conventions. Such a policy would not only exist for the case of Georgia, but would apply to any possible future conflicts over possible new (or old) nations. Before you reply, I would like to note such a rule would not affect the current status of Macedonia, which exists as a disambiguation page because of long-standing stable consensus over a real-life naming dispute (in contrast with the entirely Wikipedia-specific dispute over Georgia). So, what are your thoughts and ideas on such a convention? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries take precedence 

message: See also the #Page name grammar thread above, which is directly relevant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. It's time we gather and centralize all guidelines regarding lists into one page, or at most two pages (one dealing with naming convention, and one dealing with content and layout). Eklipse (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Related materials

message: I propose moving Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), WP:NCLL, to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists), WP:NCLIST, and merging in the naming-related material from WP:SAL, since that is a style guideline. There is already a section at WP:NCLL on lists in general, so that is where this material would go.  WP:NCLL and its longer name would redirect to the new name. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. It's time we gather and centralize all guidelines regarding lists into one page, or at most two pages (one dealing with naming convention, and one dealing with content and layout). Eklipse (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move and merge

message: Please do not use the  template on this talk page , as nothing is ever resolved. There is either a current consensus to do something or there is not and that may change at an time.  Editors are able to read the section and make up their own minds if the issue is resolved, (they do not need a template with a large tick in it to tell them if it is) and if they do not think it is resolved, they are free to add a comment at the end of a section without having to edit another editor's edit by removing the  template --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolved 

message: This question is mainly due to the very long discussion about naming over at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war. The discussion there has been inconclusive, mainly due to one fact: There is a title that is clearly the most common used one, but it is also claimed to be POV. Set aside for a second the special case and asume that title would indeed be POV and there exists another one, NPOV but rarely used. So the question is:
If the most commonly used English name for an article is POV, because the English speaking media as a whole is not neutral, and there exists a NPOV title that is not commonly used, which title should be used: The uncommon NPOV or the common POV one? --Xeeron (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV and accurate would seem to be the best choice.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of naming "accurate" is almost the same as "good", so that renders the question a bit irrelevant. Assume that none of the 2 titles is a particularly accurate summary of the article. --Xeeron (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV vs common usage 

message: Used WikiCleaner software to repair disambiguation links.  Please do not revert back to the old links, see: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Maintenance for more info.  See also: Template:Main/doc for explanation to why the summary style was updated, as the format previously used was incorrect. From MOS/Context: Do not use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. This assists in determining when a significant number of references to redirected links warrant more detailed articles.
Funandtrvl (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used WikiCleaner, please do not revert 

message: A discussion has opened on the more appropriate naming of articles in :Category:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom. The discussion has been moved to Category talk:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom. The essence of the discussion, is that:
*a) the term Crystal Palace transmitter or Foo transmitter is used more commonly than Crystal Palace transmitting station or Foo transmitting station and so fits with the advice of Wikipedia:Name#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name.
*b) the term Crystal Palace transmitting station or Foo transmitting station is more technically accurate as the term Transmitter has a specific use which does not and should not be applied to the station as a whole. As this is a technical term, the naming policy does not apply. 
The relevant wording of the advice from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions is:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number 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. 
This is justified by the following principle: 
:The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. 
Reliable sources use both transmitter and transmitting station.
Input to the discussion is sought. SilkTork *YES! 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can suggest is using whichever gets the most Google hits (not very scientific, I know), and create a redirect using the alternative. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on naming - [[Crystal Palace transmitter]] or [[Crystal Palace transmitting station]] 

message: Ragarding naming conventions as per WP:NAME,
Does prevalence of a name have higher priority than the official correct version of the name?
Example: Arkansas's state assembly has officially stated that "arkensaw" is the correct pronunciation, and specifically that the pronounciation "ar-kanzas" is incorrect. Now if someone made an article for Arkansas in some foreign wiki langauage, and literally named the article with the spelling that would give the pronunciation arkanzas (instead of the correct spelling that would give the pronunciation Arkensaw), citing prevalence as their reason, wouldnt they be incorrect? Does not being correct over-ride the prevalence criterion for naming convention?
Any takers?--129.111.69.67 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be something the other wiki would have to deal with. Is there an example you can offer on the English pedia? --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about pronunciation but this debate occurs all the time over at WP:RM, either to do with new spellings, or should names have modified letters. The Naming conventions cover this in detail. Use the name and spelling as used in reliable English language sources. Some examples (not all of which follow the naming conventions): Zürich, Kiev, Renaming of cities in India, Côte d'Ivoire, Burma --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming convention question 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Subpages --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpages 

message: See WP:Update for the September changes to all the :Category:Wikipedia content policies pages (including this one) and also the most generally-used style guidelines (called, unsurprisingly, :Category:General style guidelines).  If anyone wants to take on the job of updating monthly content policy at WP:Update, please reply at WT:Update.  Obviously, since this page is in WP-space, anyone can make any edit at any time, but regular updaters would be nice. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Update 

message: Per Wikipedia:NAME#Album and song titles and band names, and looking at the history at Whatever You Like ("Weird Al" Yankovic song), where should that article be found?  Have I misinterpreted something?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If your point is that the thing we're disambiguating from is also a song, then I see what you're getting at. I do read that section, however, as "if there is any need to disambiguate a song, then use (song) plus any extra words as necessary". Also, on a more personal level, I prefer to have parenthetical disambiguation, when possible, a description of what the subject is; it's a "Weird Al" Yankovic song, but it's not a "Weird Al" Yankovic. There are lots of exceptions to that out there, though. -- Jao (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Al? 

message: I propose that the project page have a linked mention of Wikipedia:Articles with slashes in title, with some kind of wording to advise editors to avoid creating new pages with slashes in their titles, except where they meet the same criteria that are already met by the ones listed on that page.
:-- Wavelength (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning "Wikipedia:Articles with slashes in title" 

message: The article on the CNBC journalist goes by his nickname "Charlie." Shouldn't it be "Charles" and, if so, how does one fix? Thanks, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  I'll answer at Talk:Charlie Gasparino. --Serge (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much, Serge. I've responded there. Thanks for the link to the more applicable naming page.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Charlie" Gasparino 

message: This may well be a useful list; and we should certainly check to see that all the individual language conventions are listed in one place. But do we need it, or should it be merged? Conversely, can the task of listing language conventions be dumped there? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Romanization]] 

message: I suggest that we move the section Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#National varieties of English from the WP:UE guideline up into this policy under the section "General conventions" --PBS (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  National varieties of English 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 11#Naming conventions redirects and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common_names)#Naming conventions redirects --PBS (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions redirects 

message: Since the names of geotagged articles are used on things like Google Maps & Google Earth (and others), should articles about planned (or planned, but aborted) features reflect their status? For example, Allandale railway station was recently moved to Allandale railway station (proposed), but that move was reverted. I don't think that this should be decided on a per-article basis, without an over-arching policy, which should be discussed here, I'll post pointers elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google's use of our data is not our concern. We have naming conventions that avoid unnecessary disambiguation. Would you have us move all of the entries on list of extinct states, such as East Germany and Panama Canal Zone? --NE2 13:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are those articles geotagged? Or is that just a slippery slope argument? I deliberately made clear that our concerns - which are real and valid - apply not only to Google, but also to other re-users of our data. I'm well aware that we have naming conventions that avoid unnecessary disambiguation; I'm suggesting that this form of disambiguation, for this sub-set of articles, may be necessary (though, strictly, this isn't disambiguation, but clarification). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Allandale railway station is not actually to be found at 55°59′06″N 3°55′47″W, then perhaps it should not be geotagged at 55°59′06″N 3°55′47″W. I think that's what should be under discussion here, not the naming of the article. -- Jao (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though there is nothing to be found at that location; that location is the subject of the article; likewise for railway stations (or whatever) which were at a given location, but have since been demolished. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tagged article title does not actually represent something which exists at that location.  But we often have to ignore what is visible at the tagged location, but there should be a reasonable location for the tagged item.  We often deal with locations of historical events (Battle of Gettysburg, World Trade Center, residences of the President of the United States, splashdown site of Apollo 11) where the reason for the location being of interest may no longer be present (ie, the capital moved or the building was burned).  Some existing things are not particularly visible if you walk to the specified location (center of Mammoth Cave, top of Washington Monument).  But often the location is significant even if you can't see at that location what is described.  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Geotagging is done so readers can click on the coordinates and see a map of where the feature was to be. --NE2 14:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree it's useful. But then we'll have to live with re-users not being able to automatically know whether a geographic feature found on Wikipedia currently exists or not – unless we can convey that information through a magic  parameter. That shouldn't be impossible, right? -- Jao (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: They should be geotagged, shouldn't they? (If there's a size limit that these exceed, replace them with smaller features like West Berlin and Osborn, Ohio.) --NE2 14:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned or aborted geographical features 

message: A conversation has been entered into at Geology North Sea about the naming North Sea Geological History . Should it be renamed Geology of the North Sea? SriMesh | talk 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. The use of history as a metaphor in covering times before writing is not helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming of this article [[North Sea Geological History ]] 

message: If an album and its title track both have articles, I usually don't add a qualifer to the album, and add "(song)" to the name of the song's article (e.g. Brand New Girlfriend and Brand New Girlfriend (song)). Is this the standard pattern for cases like this? Is there any standard for cases like this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard is the same as for all WP articles: If the name has a primary topic, then the article about that topic should be at the name alone, and the other should be at that name disambiguated.  If there is no primary topic then a dab page should be at the name alone.  However, when there are only two topics, then it's reasonable to pick the "more important" (even if it does not meet primary topic criteria) for the name alone, and link to the other through a hat note.  So then, how do you decide which is "more important"?  Arguably, the song usually comes into existence first, and the album is simply named after one of the songs on the album.  Further, isn't it true that the song is usually better known than the album?   So I think I would lean in favor of putting the song at the name alone, and dabbing the article tile about the album (Name (album)).  But there are always exceptions, where maybe the album becomes much better known than the song that is its namesake. The album may be sufficiently notable to be on Wikipedia, but not the song, for example.  In short, I don't think there is a convention, and I don't think there should be one.  Most things should be considered on a case by case basis, and I think your question falls into that category.  In each case the editor should do the work of figuring out which, in that case, should be at name alone, and which should be dabbed.  Don't avoid that necessary and useful work by seeking a mindless convention.   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album vs. title track 

message: If someone can fix the broken link to the list of conjunctions, then I won't have to report a broken link in the monthly WP:Update.  This was kind of complicated; there was an older list of conjunctions that got deleted, then the link got redirected somehow to FANBOYS, then that link was changed on Nov 7 ... still, I'd prefer not to have to report on broken links in a content policy, it doesn't look right. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Update 

message: I'm having repeated battles over some articles where the common use of a term is a subset of the general meaning. The argument I make (always successfully so far) is that the wikipedia is a general work, and therefore needs to cover all examples of a term, not just the most common usage.
For example:
*internal combustion engine
:normally taken to mean 'piston engine' but also covers Wankel engine
:the general definition includes gas turbines, jet engines, ramjets and rockets
:we ended up using the general definition
*jet engine
:normally taken to mean turbojet or turbofan
:general definition includes anything emitting a jet to move, ramjet jet boat rocket engine
:we ended up using the general definition
*steam engine
:normally taken to mean a piston engine powered by steam
:but lots of steam ships and power generation uses steam powered gas turbines
:we ended up using the general definition
Current discussion:
*glider
:normally taken to mean sailplane
:general definition includes anything gliding, but a glider is normally something intended to glide including the Space Shuttle
:discussion is ongoing...
I personally think in situations like this we have little choice but to use the general definition; and I loathe having to battle it out each time, I get personally attacked and it causes all manner of ill-will all round.
Is it agreed that it is desirable to preferentially use the general definition wherever at all reasonable? If so I'll add it as policy. Can anyone think of a clear counter-example?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the general definition should be used when possible.  As another example, consider Hollywood (which is currently unfortunately a redirect to the unnecessarily precise Hollywood, Los Angeles, California; see Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles, California for a discussion about fixing this) in which the district of L.A. as well as its closely related use as metonym is covered.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't consider that it would apply in situations where they're not a strict subset/superset; I think in the example you give Hollywood the place and Hollywood the industry aren't subsets, one's geographical and the other is business related. I would probably lean to Hollywood being the studio system on popularity grounds though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: How would you propose we should modify WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should simply clarify that the bit that says "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" means that where a general sense is reasonably well known that it should be used in preference to any subset/restricted sense, even if that restricted sense may be somewhat more common, otherwise we'd just be encouraging ambiguity.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: In the case of glider for example, if you ask almost anyone whether a paper aeroplane is a glider, they will say yes, but it is a glider in the general sense, not the restricted sense of sailplane, so the generality rule would make glider be the general concept rather than sailplane concept.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't apply if it was truly an obscure usage though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common subset names 

message: :Not sure if this is directly related to the examples given above, but why does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) appear to get a blanket exemption from using common names? Recently many articles have been moved from the common name to the scientific name. Just a few examples: Joshua tree to Yucca brevifolia; White oak to Quercus alba; Bur oak to Quercus macrocarpa. It is understandable that the scientific name might be preferred in cases where there is no single well-known common name or where the common name is ambiguous. But it just seems wrong to systematically prefer the scientific name, even in cases where there is a well-established, unambiguous common name. older ≠ wiser 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.  Check out Poison oak for an example of that.  WP:UCN is completely ignored.  Another fairly recent example of WP:UCN being ignored is the failed move proposal of Public house → Pub at Talk:Public house.  Turns out that "pub" is an abbreviation of "public house", and that's good material for the article, but clearly the most common term is "pub" (and Pub redirects to Public house), and so, per WP:UCN, that should be the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: This issue should be raised at the Village pump/policy.  I started a discussion over there, at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text: No it isn't. Hesperian 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)]] 

message: The proposal to move the article at Yucca brevifolia back to Joshua Tree was rejected due to supposed lack of consensus, despite voting to be 2:1 in favor of the restoration, and the fact that it was moved unilaterally from Joshua Tree without any discussion much less establishment of consensus only  last month. 
This is another victim of the belief that specific conventions should trump general guidelines (rather than specific conventions should complement, and not contradict, general guidelines).  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. Hesperian 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua Tree update 

message: There is a proposal getting a lot of support to move Bounty (ship) to a name with considerably more (unnecessary) precision here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bounty_(ship)#Requested_move
--Born2cycle (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary precision: Bounty 

message: AC/DC's new single "Rock 'n' Roll Train" (short discussion at talk page), should it be titled as the CD cover says ("Rock N Roll Train"), the vinyl cover says ("Rock N' Roll Train") or how i would write it with the apostrphes representing the two missing letters, this is what seems most correct to me. I suppose this issue is also connected to Rock 'n' Roll and Guns N' Roses, i am beginning to assume the title should be written as trademarked, because changing where the apostrophes are is changing the trademark? So, i am not sure, please review the issue, thanks! k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking the article's title should reflect how it is shown on album credits (for example Hot N Cold - no apostrophes), although on the song's Talk Page I added links to images of the vinyl album and CD cover scans - one has an apostrophe and no space (Rock N'Roll) and the other has none (Rock N Roll). - eo (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know. Anyway, my opinion: It's not the job of Wikipedia to interpret song titles in any way, but to documentate them. --80.130.136.81 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rock 'n' Roll Train" or "Rock N Roll Train" 

message: The use of race and  ethnicity prefix descriptors seems arbitrary.  If the intent is to give nationality, then racial or ethnic prefix is inappropriate.   For example, below is an extract from 1940, Births:
snip:
October 23 - Pelé, Brazilian footballer
October 25 - Bobby Knight, American basketball coach
October 27 - John Gotti, American gangster (d. 2002)
November 1 - Ramesh Chandra Lahoti, Chief Justice of India
November 12 - Glenn Stetson, Canadian singer ("The Diamonds")
November 15 - Sam Waterston, American actor (Law and Order)
November 15 - Roberto Cavalli, Italian designer
November 17 - Luke Kelly, Irish ballad singer (The Dubliners)
November 21 - Richard Marcinko, U.S. Navy SEAL team member and author
November 25 - Joe Gibbs, American football coach
November 27 - Bruce Lee, Chinese-American martial artist and actor (The Green Hornet) (d. 1973)
November 29 - Chuck Mangione, famous American flugelhorn player
December 1 - Richard Pryor, African-American actor and comedian (d. 2005)
end snip:
Pele not listed as African-Brazilian
Knight not listed as White-American
Gotti not listed as Italian-American
Stetson not listed as Scottish-Canadian or Ulster-Scottish-Canadian
On the other hand: 
Lee listed as Chinese-American (he was born in the San Francisco.) 
Mangione listed as "famous" as opposed to the many obscure American flugelhorn players catalogued in Wikipedia?
Pryor listed as African-American.
Is there any policy that can explain the various distinctions?  I suggest all non-nationality qualifiers be saved for the subjects biography page.  
Ebesch1 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another aspect of this is categorization. WP:CATEGORY says that we should only use categories to reflect what is in the text. So if a subject is not identified in the text as an "African American", then we should not categorize him or her that way. So, if not in the lead then where?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of racial or ethnic prefix to nationality of subject biography:  African-American, etc. vs American 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Article titles about multiples and submultiples of units. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in titles such as [[kilometre]], [[milliampere]], etc. 

message: There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results.  The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on voting as a component of consensus 

message: This is a list of unit names for which a title of the form "unitname (unit)" might be problematic. The intent is to develop a sensible naming convention covering at least some of these cases, if possible (or to conclude, on a factual basis, that the situation is truly hopeless).
 
Currently very incomplete; feel free to expand.
* ton (long, short, or metric)
* pound (mass, force, or currency)
* second, minute (time or angle)
* gallon, pint, quart (US or imperial volume)
* mile (statue or nautical)
* cup (imperial, metric, or Japanese)
Note that having two or more units sharing a name is in principle no different from other dab situations. In particular, if one sense is much more common or important than the other, the primary meaning can still sensibly reside at "unitname (unit)", and the other(s) at "unitname (clarifier unit)" with a hatnote, as in Stone (unit) vs. Stone (Chinese unit). Some of the examples in the list above might fall into this category. Hqb (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even RockyMtnGuy's additions for tons have only scratched the surface.  The short, long, and metric tons have all spun off force units in addition to the standard mass units; "refrigeration tons" might be either units of energy or units of power; other energy units include various tons of oil equivalent, tons of coal equivalent, etc.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there also a Heavy lourde?  Just kidding.  However, I believe that when the tons are metric, they are spelled "tonne". Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)  03:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of ambiguous unit names 

message: Simple question which honestly most of you probably don't care about the subject for (professional wrestling), but i'm asking anyway to end a conflict: should articles be named by their given name or by a wikiprojects manual of style? Wrestling promotion Ring of Honor held a pay-per-view event which they titled "Rising Above 2008" but shortened on promotional posters to simply "Rising Above", which is also the same named use for another pay-per-view they taped in 2007. Rising Above 2008 was filmed in November 2008 and is airing in January 2009. The official name for the event as given by Ring of Honor is "Rising Above 2008", however it is WikiProject Professional wrestling's policy not to go by what they titled it. Instead, it has been changed to Rising Above (2009) because it is being aired in 2009. So my question is should the article be title by what the promotion who held the event named it (Rising Above 2008) or by what the wikiproject says it should be named ("Rising Above (2009)")? Nenog (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple question 

message: Just as a general rule (because this annoys me every time it happens), there doesn't have to be a talk page discussion before every change of wording, as implied in Philip's edit summary, particularly if it's a stylistic change only. So while you are perfectly entitled to revert, I think it would be more helpful for discussion if you gave your actual reason for reverting (i.e. why you think the edit was unhelpful), because the statement that there has to be discussion beforehand is just incorrect. It quite often turns out in practice (on policy pages in particular) that people have just reverted blindly because they wrongly think everything needs to be pre-discussed, and this disrupts the BRD process since we can't distinguish between cases where there is real opposition necessitating discussion, and where there is only misguided bureaucracy at work. </rant>
All the changes I just made were only intended to make the meaning clearer - if people don't think I've succeeded, or if they think the meaning's been inadvertently changed, then that's fine, revert them, but please say what the objection actually is.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree "lack of discussion" or "insufficient discussion" alone does not justify a revert.  A specific objection to the change being reverted should also be provided, either in the edit summary or in the talk page with a note about that in the edit summary.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting changes 

message: A request for comment has been opened at the talk page of WP:MOSCL, on how the Manual of Style should handle mixed and non-capitalization in personal names. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed and non-capitalization in personal names 

message: For a proposal to rename Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) to something outside "naming conventions space" (it was previously proposed to merge it with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)), please see and comment here.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal (was merge proposal) 

message: There is a big misconception above about what "original research" is.  WP:NOR was formulated to prevent people from adding their own first-hand accounts of things to articles; as such it works in tandem with WP:V.  So, I am free to look at what the New York Times says, and use that information.  I am not free to use myself as a source. Applying this to naming conventions: If we go and do a google test to determine what the most commonly used name of a topic is, that is not original research; we are not making anything from scratch, we are using other sources.  If we make the name up on our own, because we think it is the right name, then that is original research, and is frowned upon.  Any questions?--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of sort of agree with you, but I also think you've missed B2c's point. Do you think it would be okay for me to insert into article X "the most commonly used name for X is Y", and to cite that assertion with a Google search? Hesperian 10:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here lies the distinction. Putting such a statement into an article is a statement of fact, and therefore requires (in principle) a better source than a Google search. But using something as the name of an article is not equivalent to stating that it's the most common name (or even that it is a name) - it's just an editorial decision, and these necessarily have to be made on our own judgement. Anyway, it's imposible for two articles to have the same name, so if the most common name (or only name) for two things is the same name, then it's not possible to use it for both.--Kotniski (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kotniski has a good point.  While I use WP:COMMONNAME as an example, we don't always use the most commonly used name, because sometimes we just can't, so we use other naming conventions, which, as Kotniski says, are there for editorial guidance.  While we certainly can't put first-hand (i.e. "original") research into an article, the article has to have SOME name, and we rely on the tools at hand to guide us in making that editorial decision.  That's not original research, that's just research.  This is not the same as a content decision.--Aervanath (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not just use the officially accepted name that will never be mistaken for anything else? No two organisms share the same scientific name. The fact that some scientific names are junior synonyms of the more correct ones are an entirely matter altogether. Shrumster (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Aervanath, I don't see the distinction you're drawing, unless you're saying that context determines whether a given process amounts to "original research" or "just research". But if that's the case, the distinction is merely semantics, which is my point.  Hesperian's example hits the nail on the head, if it's OR to assert that "X is the most commonly used name for Y" in an article, based only on google search results, why is it not OR when doing so implicitly in the process of naming an article?  One way or another, I think this needs to be cleared up.  Either WP:NOR has to clearly say it does not apply to article naming, or WP:NC has to say that in the context of article naming determining the most commonly used name is not OR, or something to that effect.  Otherwise we have the absurd situation in which there are those who claim that the naming process used to name the bulk of the articles in WP is inherently in violation of WP:NOR, and should not be used if there is any kind of alternative reliable source to draw from.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Exactly, I see this all the time with brand new translated common names. You go and check the sources and there it is: Wikipedia. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The difference between original research and just plain research

message: As you're probably aware, there is currently a long-running dispute over at the flora naming convention, which hinges on whether or not we're paying our dues to "use the most common name". I'll try not to import that long-running dispute over here (more than it already is), but there is one matter that arises from it that really does need to be dealt with here:
This policy is supposed to be descriptive of how we operate, not prescriptive; and as a description it is woefully inaccurate in the emphasis that it puts on "use the most common name".
In every field in which there exists canonical (i.e. official, standardised or formally published) names, I see a constant tension between "use the canonical name" and "use the most common name", with the former winning reasonably often, perhaps more often than not. Consider these examples:
* Books, movies, albums, songs, etcetera, are nearly always known by their actual names, irrespective of whether or not these are most common.
** e.g. Metallica (album), not some disambiguation of "The Black Album".
* If it is easy to ascertain the gazetted name of a geographic place, the article on that place is almost without exception given the gazetted name as the title. Editors don't give a moment's thought to what the most common name is; they just consult the GNIS or the Gazetteer of Australia or whatever, and go with the gazetted name.
* Birds and mammals have standardised common (i.e. vernacular/vulgar) names, so our article titles always follow them, irrespective of whether they are the most commonly (i.e. usually) used names;
* The astronomy naming convention pays its dues to WP:COMMONNAME, but the tension is still there.
** e.g. Talk:Halley's Comet/Halley's Comet archive. The article is now at Halley's Comet but the naming convention still advocates Comet Halley.
There are many more examples—in chemistry, medicine, ships, aircraft, broadcasting, ...—but I think I've made my point, which is that in practice "use the most common name" is not given the weight that a reading of this policy page would mislead you into thinking. On the contrary, when there is a canonical name, it is not at all unusual for editors to adopt it as the right name, without giving "use the most common name" a moment's thought.
I think the  current wording of this policy reflects the prescription of a few idealists, rather than a description of how we actually operate in article space. Unless there are strong objections, I propose to begin editing this page to bring it in line with current practice.
Hesperian 12:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to object to this.  Maybe trying to find the most common name is an idealistic goal; however, if you want a descriptive policy, I can tell you that it's very descriptive of how I and the other admins at WP:RM evaluate move discussions.  (Of course, the four or five of us active there obviously can't impose our will on the whole community, so maybe we are the few idealists you are referring to.)  However, we are supposed to be optimizing this encyclopedia for the layman over the specialist; that implies that we should be applying the principle of least astonishment to article names, and locating them at the most common name.  This is distinct from the "vernacular" or "vulgar" name (which I think everybody already agrees on, I just wanted to restate it for anyone new to the discussion), and instead means the most "commonly-used" name, i.e. the name that most people would expect to find the article at.  I don't think I'm saying anything revolutionary here.  I am, however, willing to accept the possibility that sometimes people expect to find the article at the canonical name and not the most commonly used name; is that more along the lines of your thinking here?--Aervanath (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I'm saying is: what would most people type in the search box when looking for the article? If it's the most commonly-used name, then use that; if it's the canonical name, then use that; I expect this will vary depending on the category.--Aervanath (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter half of your reply is reasonably persuasive. But whilst disagreeing with me, you seem to be mounting a fresh argument that leads to the same conclusion: this policy is overcooking "use the most common name". Hesperian 13:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think our opinions are not that far apart, actually.  I originally mistook your position as "Forget WP:COMMONNAME, and just go with the canonical name."  However, what you're actually saying (if I understand you correctly) is "Don't forget WP:COMMONNAME altogether, but the canonical name is used more often than not."  Before I go on with what I think, please tell me if I've correctly understood your postion; I initially started off with a misunderstanding, and I don't want to continue if I'm working off different assumptions than you are.  Have I read you correctly?--Aervanath (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, more or less. In fields where there is a canonical name, an across-the-board "use the canonical name" would be just as inaccurate as an across-the-board "use the most common name". What actually happens is each field makes its own tradeoff. Ornithographers says "The standard names for birds are very widely accepted and we would look silly if we didn't follow suit, so always use the standard name." Geographers say "Gazetted names are very widely accepted, so use the gazetted name in general, but be ready to make exceptions in exceptional circumstancesf (e.g. see the last paragraph of Uluru#Name. Geologists might say "Attempts to standardise the names of stratigraphic units have not been widely adopted, so lets just stick with using the most common name". My point is that these decisions are routinely made on Wikipedia per field, and this policy should reflect that reality, rather than inaccurately putting "use the most common name" on a pedestal. Hesperian 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I like this proposal.  It makes sense, and it reflects the reality of how we tend to do things.  I believe that it describes the way we do things for plants, it works for mammals and birds, it works for chemical elements and trains.  As Hesp said above, it's descriptive, not prescriptive...which is the way that works best in the formulation of policies and guidelines.  Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support this idea. Each project can, should, and in fact tends to use what works best for their field. "Use the most common name" is often ignored, because it is not always what works best. Policy should be descriptive of what actually works. First Light (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Using canonical names as titles for the main content would generally avoid some difficulties, e.g. need to move / rename if the common name is challenged, is known only to readers in certain regions / cultures, turns out to be shared by 2 or more subjects, is non-existent in English, etc. However I would expect articles to provide all common names in the appropriate language, with refs of course. I would also expect either redirect or DAB pages with common names as titles, to facilitate searching via the WP search and external ones such as Google. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most common name versus the canonical name 

message: Hesperian wrote:
:This is not a case of "trying to alter policy to fit around a guideline". This is a case of making this policy page more accurately describe the modus operandi of editors. All over Wikipedia, people are adopting canonical names where they exist. They use gazetted geographic names; they use standardised common names; they use the official names of medical conditions, astronomical bodies and chemical compounds; they use the exact titles of books, films, albums and songs; they use the registered names of companies; they use the registered names of ships and trains; and so on. In many cases they don't give a second's thought to what is the most common name; they simply follow the canonical nomenclature of whatever field they are working in. This is what they do whether this policy page says so or not.
In general I agree with this, however, so far as I can tell, in every case outside of flora (and this is why I object to the current flora guideline/convention), whether they give a second's thought to what is the common name or not, they do seem to think about what name would be most easily recognized by readers.  That is, the name they come up with may not necessarily be the most commonly used name for the subject in question, but it's often a derivation of it, and is always (so far as I know) easily recognizable.  The flora guideline, in contrast to all other specialized guidelines in Wikipedia, pays no heed to choosing the name that is "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", per WP:NC.
Yes, common  name explicitly allows for exceptions when specialized guidelines call for them, but the implication is that the resulting name will still comply with "easily recognizable".  That is, there is room for compromise from using the most common  name in favor of uniqueness, predictability, standardizations, etc., but the difference between the resulting title and the theoretical "most common name" is typically a difference in degree, not in kind (much less language).  Every guideline that is an exception to common name (ships, royalty, U.S. city names, etc.) that I'm aware of does ultimately comply with "most easily recognize".  The current flora guideline does not do this, and that's a violation of "modus operandi of editors" (outside of a dozen or so plant editors), as well as a blatant violation of the WP:NC policy which does reflect the behavior of WP editors (outside of flora).
KP Botany wrote:
:Yes, this would be useful, to forestall the two plus months of PBS and B2c hounding plant editors that that clause is meaningless. Since, in fact, what happens is, editors decide to use pieces of the policy to their benefit and ignore the rest in order to enjoy two months of hounding the plant editors and preventing them from editing and creating and discussing plant articles as these two non-plant editors have done for going on three months now.
The implication here is that PBS and I have decided "to use pieces of the policy to their benefit and ignore the rest".  I would like to know which pieces of the policy KP believes we are ignoring (and are applicable here).  I also would like to know how posting on a guideline talk page prevents anyone from doing any editing to any articles.
It's unfortunate that plant editors have been getting away with doing whatever the heck they want to do with respect to naming, without regard to WP policy, conventions and guidelines for so long, but now that more outsiders are aware of it, and especially with their derision of editors who do not edit plant articles, and these new attempts to change policy and conventions in other areas (like fauna) to make their guideline seem less inappropriate within WP than it actually is, it's high time to put a stop to it.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, B2c. You and PBS have been a real pain for the past two months. Perhaps you both mean well, but you are apparently incapable of learning. It's ironic that your efforts have only helped to highlight an important problem -- one of many -- that exist with the current version of WP:NC (fauna). Surly, this is the opposite of what you intended. --Jwinius (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "problem" at WP:NC (fauna) is typical of WP - it is part of WP because of the imperfect and subjective inherent nature of naming according to "easily recognized" and "common name".  Yes, it can be "solved" by naming all books by ISBN #, all people by personal ID #, corporations by stock ticker symbol, all flora and fauna according to scientific Latin taxa names, all chemicals according to chemical symbols, etc., but that would not be Wikipedia.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the thing though. Books usually have differing ISBN numbers for different editions and releases, for example, hardbound and softbound. There is no national ID# that applies to all people worldwide. Not all corporations have ticker symbols and the ones that do may differ from country-to-country depending on where they're traded. Many compounds have multiple correct ways of writing their formulae. (C2H6O for Eth? C2H5OH? CH3-CH2-O? Fatty acids come to mind.) But for almost all organisms, only one and one scientific name is valid. And please stop referring to them as "Latin" names. Many scientific names are Greek-derived. Shrumster (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not about common name, it's about "easily recognized" 

message: Could there be a section on the sequence of punctuation within titles? I.e. "TITLE: SUBTITLE - SUBSUBTITLE", as well as some general guidance on the inclusion of taglines (currently I think taglines are frowned upon). SharkD (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of subtitles 

message: There is a long and annoying debate going on at Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team which might benefit from input from someone experienced in sorting out naming conflicts. --Helenalex (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Blacks / NZ national rugby union team 

message: I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that sub-articles should generally be titled like "Transport in England" or "History of America" rather than "English transport" or "American history". I can't seem to find it again. Am I imagining reading this or is this true?--Pattont/c 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Subpages. I think that is all we have on the subject, but follow the links, there may be more advise. --PBS (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No I read that it wasn't what I was looking for. I have found it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). Thanks anyway.--Pattont/c 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-articles 

message: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject. "
I see no advantage in adding "for the topic" to the sentence as it adds nothing but potential confusion over what the additional phrase means. --PBS (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). Hesperian 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  for the topic 

message: A question has come up concerning what to bold in article ledes when the topic is a taxonomic group.  Options include:  (1) bold only the common name, (2) bold the scientific name as well, if it is used in the page name, or (3) bold all names reflecting alternate page names.  The last involves bolding the scientific name and all common names.  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#MOS question. --Una Smith (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually any redirect target should be bold.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#MOS question.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A related MOS question 

message: If you are interested in a rename between BC and BCE for categories, you can drop in on this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh god, not that one again...here come the bots...sigh... (LOL)  Montanabw(talk) 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No the bots are only involved after a change is approved for categories :-) Like I said, comments welcome in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC v BCE issue 

message: I couldn't find a relevant NC guideline to apply here. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) doesn't really apply to buildings or landmarks, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) is marked as historical and doesn't really answer the question either. The disambiguation pages at Empire Tower and Victory Monument reflect the lack of a standard disambiguation scheme for buildings pretty well. For example, should the Empire Tower in Bangkok be at Empire Tower (Bangkok), Empire Tower, Bangkok, Empire Tower (Thailand), or Empire Tower, Thailand? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/March#Disambiguation for buildings and/or landmarks. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation for buildings and/or landmarks 

message: I am kind of new here but it seems logical to me that an encyclopedia should be neutral. Adding the words "more Panic" seems to take a side. I have read a recent research in which close to 1,500 survivors’ reports this is not merely panic but an actual crime which affected their lives very deeply. Higherpowered123 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please name the article concerned. cygnis insignis 09:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "more panic" 

message: :Discussion moved to WT:MOS#Subordinating conjunctions; should as be capitalised in the middle of a title?. Please make any further comments there.
----
Hi I asked this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) but got no replies so I'm trying here:
 seems to suggest it is a subordinating conjunction, rather than a coordinating conjunction; is this distinction significant? Other subordinating conjunctions with fewer than five letters are: 
#if
#that
#till
#what
#when
#as if
#as long as
#even if
#so that
(each word of the compounds has fewer than five letters)
Current usage on Wikipedia is mixed, although lowercase seems to dominate to me (no absolute figures to prove this) e.g.:
*As Slow As Possible
*Victoria Wood As Seen On TV (but on certainly should not be capitalised)
*Dry As a Bone (note a is not capitalised, which is correct)
vs.
*Venus as a Boy
*Justice as Fairness
*Life as a House
*Thick as a Brick
*A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
*I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud
It seems to me that strictly conforming to the letter of the manual means as should be capitalised, but is that how it is actually applied, both on the Wiki and elsewhere?
Any guidance gratefully received. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems there isn't any clear rule one way or the other. Try asking at WT:MOS - people there tend to know these things.--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should ''as'' be capitalised in the middle of a title?