Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Earlier dicussions:

• /archive1
• /archive2
• /archive3
• /archive4
• /archive5
• /archive6
• /archive7

Official company product names

I could not find any naming convention policy that clarifies whether a product article should always be named after the official name of the product the commonly that makes it uses or the common name for the product when they differ. Should a company's official name for a product take place over an common but unofficial name? --Cab88 16:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Caps in song titles

I refer any interested partes to Talk:I'm With You.

Generally, I am a stickler for naming conventions; however, when it comes to titles, I think we need to show some care. Artists may not be aware of naming conventions, or come from countries with differing conventions, or may be ignoring them intentionally; in the latter case (if demonstrable), we certainly should respect the artist's intentions. If a song was released called "HaXx0rZ", for example, we wouldn't change it to "Hackers"—or, so I hope.

Input is welcome.

Edit: I've made an additional point. RadioKirk talk to me 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The current guideline reads:

In titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (to, over, through) or articles (an, a, the).

Perhaps the guideline should be reworded along these lines:

Album titles, songs that are primarily associated with one artist, and artist names should be capitalized to reflect primary sources, such as album covers, liner notes, and the artist's official promotional material. Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band)). Where capitalization is ambiguous or inconsistent in primary sources, album and song titles should follow the standard rule in the English language of capitalizing the first word in the title and words that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (to, over, through) or articles (an, a, the). Traditional songs and standards should follow the standard rule of capitalization.

--Muchness 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (updated 04:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

I would find that agreeable. RadioKirk talk to me 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I find that acceptable as well. Are there any other policies and/or guidelines that could provide elucidation? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change this. As things stand, the convention is nice and clear cut, meaning it should be possible to link to an article without checking where the target page is, so you don't have to check whether it's From Me to You or From Me To You, or whatever. Relying on the record sleeves would open up all kinds of anomalies and doubtless lead to conflicts - it seems fairly common for tracks to be listed entirely in capitals, for instance. Fair enough, if the artist has intentionally used an idiosyncratic form then that should be stated explicitly, but I suspect such cases are pretty rare and they're already covered by the unless it is unique clause; we certainly don't need to dilute the current convention for those exceptions. I'm sure the current rule is pretty standard in published material; I don't really see a problem with it. Flowerparty■ 23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification - what exactly is meant by unless it is unique? I refer you to the talk page for Bridge over Troubled Water. aLii 12:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that this is as good a guideline as any. BotleySmith 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial addition

In response to several reverted renames over the past day or so ([1], [2], [3]), I've added part of this proposal to the guidelines. Please revert if the edit was in error. --Muchness 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Title length

I propose to discourage really long article titles. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#Article title length. Thanks, Melchoir 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

proposed Naming conventions (Tibetan)

There has been a recent proposal for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan). Please provide comments at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Page titles that differ only in capitalization

Proposal

It is very confusing when there are two pages that are on different topics, but share the same title except for capitalization. Unless there is objection I will add the following paragraph after the convention section of 1.1:

It is possible to create two pages that have the same name but different capitalization. This is confusing to readers and should be avoided (use the disambiguation mechanisms instead). Example: use "Streets of London (song)" and "Streets of London (game)" instead of "Streets of London" and "Streets Of London".

Objections? Support? -- cmh 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2

It is possible to create two pages that have the same name but different capitalization. If the topics are not easily distinguished by their capitalization the disambiguation mechanisms should be used instead. Examples: While acronyms like Wasp and WASP are clear, use "Streets of London (song)" and "Streets of London (game)" instead of "Streets of London" and "Streets Of London".

-- cmh 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Well, they certainly shouldn't differ only in the capitalisation of minor words like Of. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe they shouldn't, but what if that's how they're always spelt? Runcorn 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Pages that differ only in capitalization should be considered to be harmful. I think this change is a very good idea. Using differing capitalization as a disambiguation device is a Very Bad IdeA. - Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Seems OK, just mentioning another example I accidently came accross today:
  • Cobra, to which also COBRA redirects, is a disambig page, containing links to (for example):
    • Cobra (snake)
    • COBRA (avant-garde movement) - note however that CoBrA is a redirect to this avant garde movement page, while unambiguous (the CoBrA camel case capitalisation is not used for any of the other Cobra/COBRA's on the dab page)

Another example (currently NOT OK with the new proposal): MIX/Mix

I don't know whether we wouldn't better make an exception for pages named after Roman numerals, which would always be capitalised and/or commonly capitalised acronyms, both of which afaik don't really seem to interfere with words that are accidently spelled with the same letters, e.g. also CIL and Cil lead to two different pages that don't even refer to one another, I wouldn't make a "problem" out of that, or would we? --Francis Schonken 11:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the proposal is to avoid rather than to prohibit, so there will always be exceptions. However, I would have no problems, for example, making vi point to VI and renaming vi to vi (computer software). I note that VI does not currently link to the numeral but to a disambiguation page. Many of the low order roman numerals seem to do that. Regarding MIX/Mix the former page is already linked to by the latter, which is a disambiguation page. I think Mix should become Mix (abstract computer). -- cmh 13:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, that should have been MIX become MIX (abstract computer). These pages are so confusing you can't even write about them... -- cmh 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Was the CoBrA redirect to COBRA (avant-garde movement) OK for you? Or should it redirect to the dab page?
• The Roman numerals issue is probably minor, I mean I don't think there are so many examples of Roman numerals that also could have a different meaning when capitalised differently. Just a question: if MIX (abstract computer) were created: would, in that case, MIX best be a dab page, or a redirect to a dab page, or would a redirect to the "abstract computer" page be fine (note that the "Roman numeral" meaning of MIX is currently explained on the page)?
• Don't know yet what you propose to change re. the CIL/Cil example (in this case, as I said, currently neither page mentions that the word could be capitalised differently, and then have a different meaning)?
• Another example currently not OK with the proposed new rule would be WASP/Wasp. In this case both pages have a link to Wasp (disambiguation) before the article begins. So, same question, how do you propose to improve that (because it is, currently, not OK with the proposed new rule)? For me both pages are OK (I mean disambiguation-wise) as they are now.

Please note that I support your proposal, only not too sure whether or not it should include acronyms and/or mention that for redirect pages if a certain capitalisation is fairly unambiguous, it can direct to a specific meaning, and need not necessarily lead to a dab page. Think, for example, also SS (currently redirecting to Schutzstaffel) vs. Ss (currently redirecting to SS (disambiguation)), would that need to change? --Francis Schonken 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know you were looking for answers to all of the cases. In general, the proposal is to treat identical titles with mixed case as the same title, resolving the mixup through the normal disambiguation mechanism. That would mean that CoBrA, MIX, should redirect to the dab page. CIL is a dab page, which should link to [[List of minor Foundation universe planets#Cil|Cil]] or something and Cil should redirect to CIL. In general the disambiguation policy provides that if one page is the clear winner in terms of what people are looking for then it should "own" the title and have a link to the dab page. Nothing in this proposal is suggesting a change to that. So, if there is consensus that WASP or Wasp have pre-eminence (in the dab policy sense) then they should take the primary name and redirect for both, with cross-links at the top, or a link to a dab page if there is another sense of wasp. If there is no consensus, then as per the dab policy there should be a dab page and both should have disambiguating titles like "WASP (acronym)" and "Wasp (insect)" or something. For 'SS' there seems to be consensus that the Schutzstaffel page is the default target; if so, it should be the target for all capitalizations and we should not depend on the user to enter "Ss" or "SS" based on some crystal ball that WP is going to work that way. All other capitalizations of the term should be treated on the associated dab page. In short, the idea is to use the disambiguation policy, as written, to solve this problem. Feel free to ask again if I don't seem to be catching your drift. -- cmh 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• If this is the way you feel, you were very convincing in making me oppose your proposal. I mean, what is this? An attempt at disruption for some cases that, as far as I can see, are perfectly OK now (like WASP/Wasp, or CoBrA being unambiguous)? A guideline should assist in solving issues, and not create artificial ones AFAIK.
• Note that your original "Streets of London" vs. "Streets Of London" problem is currently in fact already covered by wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) (see examples section in that guideline), so there's no need to burden wikipedia:naming conventions with extra rules in that sense. --Francis Schonken 17:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do seem to differ as I don't see WASP/Wasp as perfectly ok. I wouldn't characterize it as disruption, rather improvement. However, I respect your opposition and let's see where the chips fall. -- cmh 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Posting about this at the pump to gather more opinions. -- cmh 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• All pages of any capitalization should be at one dab page, without exception. The software may be case sensitive, but our naming guidelines should not be. SchmuckyTheCat 14:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Ligulem 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Read your note on Village Pump. I agree with your idea on principal, but it seems to imply that most examples are done on purpose. I don't think that's the case. Most editors will not check for alternate capitalizations of an article they create, especially if they create from a red link. They will just use the capitalization that they think is appropriate - usually just the first letter capped (Little bits of bacon) or title capitalization (Shermer High School). Few people are going to see if "Little Bits of Bacon" or "Shermer high school" exist. Not sure what the solution is, other than good efforts being put into disambig pages. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, currently the exact implementation of cmh's proposal (that is without the caveats discussed above) would, for instance, be contradicting Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Confusion. It's not a good idea to short-circuit a guideline (that obviously has been discussed at length before, and reflects current consensus) by superseding it by a new policy instruction:

1. At least the change would need to be discussed at wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, and there would need to be a new consensus established there too.
2. As this is an issue relating to page naming precision too, I elaborated wikipedia:naming conventions (precision) somewhat this morning, but kept in line with current wikipedia:disambiguation guidance.

Also the central naming conventions principle, based on recognisability and ease of linking (like for instance the unambiguous "CoBrA") is at stake, when cmh's unammended proposal would be introduced in the policy.

In short, I don't see the need to expand wikipedia:naming conventions with the wording proposed by cmh, while the issue is covered by appropriate guidance in (for example) wikipedia:disambiguation, wikipedia:naming conventions (capitalisation), wikipedia:naming conventions (precision), etc... and I am wary of creating contradiction with current guidance by new rulecruft. --Francis Schonken 09:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis, just a friendly point of order. The policies supercede the guidelines, not vice versa. Thus it is appropriate to debate the policy rather than the guideline first. -- cmh 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• My initial comment (way above) was based on the current wording which says should be avoided which I would interpret as should be avoided except in cases where it makes sense. Acronyms vs. regular words (WASP/Wasp) seem perfectly OK to me. If this is meant to apply in all cases without exception (and apparently that is the proposer's intent), I object. WASP/wasp should clearly mutually disambiguate (which they do). Perhaps the instances where it makes sense (acronym or initialisms vs. regular words) are more frequent than instances that should be avoided (Streets of London vs. Streets Of London), in which case there is likely no need to change any policies or guidelines. I don't think this is particularly different than the situation with words containing accented vs. unaccented characters. I would support a software change to display articles with other capitalizations (and accents) on the page create form. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• It seems like common sense to me, but there sure are a lot of those pages out there. I haven't found any to be particularly confusing, though, because there is (usually) a dab message at the top of the page. For that reason, I'd prefer to avoid the rule creep. The thing that would sway me to promote your proposal, would be if people fought me when I tried to use common sense and renamed the pages accordingly. I don't detect that anyone is in favor of leaving articles named like you're complaining about. If there are such people, I'll vote for your (second) proposal. -Freekee 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on second proposal

Ok. I thank you all for your comments, and am understanding the problem, particularly with the acronyms now. I am willing to compromise and change my position on the acronyms like Wasp and WASP. I have tried to reword the proposal so that it would help with the concerns brought up above. I still think the content is worth including here because it is not simply a question of precision, and I do believe that — acronyms aside — there is the potential for confusion with capitalization. There needs to be something in the naming rules that can be referenced when debate about this issue comes up. I hope the new version clarifies that acronyms (and I leave it open that some other circumstances too) are clear from their capitalization. I debated about including a statement that if two pages of different capitalization exist they should link to one another, but this seemed too much detail for this page, and perhaps could be included at the dab guideline, if deemed necessary. -- cmh 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created a list of pages that fall into this category of multiple capitalizations over at User:Cmh/List of page titles with multiple capitalizations. There are approximately 3608 groups of pages, totalling 7272 pages that are in this camp (redirects excluded). While not all of these are a problem, it is easy to pick items off the list that are. IMO we really need this guideline to tell people it is not OK to overlap page names in some of these cases... just because a book title and a concept differ in natural capitalization it is not OK to use non-disambiguated titles in these cases... much too confusing. Your thoughts on the list are appreciated. -- cmh 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this new guideline. It may constitute instruction creep, the current status does not cause any problem as long as there is a disambiguation link at the top of the page (but feel free to make that a guideline)]], and it ain't broke, so why fix it? Stifle (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, on the matter of Shermer High School, anybody who would create Shermer high school (as opposed to the correctly capitalized version) is highly unlikely to be very familiar with the naming conventions anyway.

So in summary, I oppose both of the proposals (in favour of a counterproposal, which I'll write shortly) but if you must have one of them, I'd prefer #2. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Counterproposal 3

It is possible to create two pages with the same name but different capitalization. If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article.

This is possibly more like what people are doing already, and results in as many or less clicks after a search box query than the prior proposals. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I updated Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) somewhat (primarily lay-out of that page which had become very messy over time), now including a phrase based on Stifle's proposal, but with a link to wikipedia:naming conventions (precision) too. And a link to to cmh's list.

For me, this is sufficient. I mean, I don't think the policy page should go in this much of detail for a practical matter that is usually not a major problem.

I also want to express thanks and admiration for cmh for the User:Cmh/List of page titles with multiple capitalizations which seems like a very useful tool to sort out pages that might be problematic in this sense. --Francis Schonken 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- cmh 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I would have preferred something stronger than mutual dab links, as I think the difference between article names causes problems with linking and editing as well (subtle capitalization differences like Streets of London and Streets Of London are hard to notice). However, it seems as if I am in the minority. In any case, I think Francis' point about putting this detail on detail pages is sufficient. I am going to touch up Francis' edits on wikipedia:naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) to make them a bit more clean and clear. -- cmh 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fate of List: A WikiProject?

The list I posted was stale from the start (see methodology on the list page) and will only get less useful over time as it is not dynamic. Regardless of what happens to the proposal, I think something has to be done about those entries that are undeniably confusing, or erroneous copies of one capitalization's page instead of redirects. One possibility would be to start a wikiproject to look into them. Since you have all been considering this issue, I would like your feedback on this idea... do you think such a wikiproject would work? If so, are you interested? I am working on a wikiproject page, but don't want to go too much further if it will just fall flat. -- cmh 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Local or English names for universities

I posted a question over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), regarding use of local (foreign) names of Universities but haven't gotten much of a response. This has been a lingering issue since about 2004. I personally think that all/most of the universities should be renamed using the translated English title with the exception of some of the public French and Quebec universities where French usage is more common. I would appreciate any other opinions about the issue. Please reply at the original discussion page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Danger Mouse

i liked the discussion for moving from calling this page DJ Danger Mouse to Danger Mouse. people please note. Extremeweb 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Casing Rules?

I'm trying to figure out how Wikipedia handles case sensitivity for article names.

"Case" is a different topic than "CASE". "I" is the same topic as "i". So I theorized that the topic names are case sensitive, except for the first character, which is mapped to uppercase.

But "Ⅰ" (0x2160) and "ⅰ" (0x2170) are different topics, so that theory is disproven.

Where can I find documentation describing the casing rules for topic names? --Mikeblas 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words leads to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), and (see above #Page titles that differ only in capitalization) there's also wikipedia:naming conventions (precision)#Minor spelling variations --Francis Schonken 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Francis. That topic doesn't answer my questions, and doesn't seem to be accurate, anyway. It says "Links to articles are always case-sensitive", which obviously isn't the case. (Case! Ha ha ha ha.) If I link to salmon, then it works, even though the article title begins with a capital letter and my link began with a lowercase letter. (And in your own response, where you linked to "wikipedia:naming conventions (precision)#Minor spelling variations" instead of "Wikipedia:...".

And there's no explanation for which non-English letters are considered uppercase or lowercase, like my example of "Ⅰ" (0x2160) and "ⅰ" (0x2170). --Mikeblas 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Updated Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) - true, something was missing from the phrase you quoted. --Francis Schonken 14:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re. "Ⅰ" (0x2160) and "ⅰ" (0x2170). Sorry, yes, in my previous reply I didn't capture what issue you were mentioning:
  • These characters (I mean, the whole range where these characters come from) should be listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft) - which currently isn't the case. So here's my proposal, in a wikipedia:sofixit approach: you see how that unicode draft guideline page is built, might I invite you to add the tables containing these characters there, respecting the layout of that page? tx!
  • These characters apparently aren't treated as "letters" by the MediaWiki software (in the way, for instance þ is treated as a letter): "Ⅰ" (0x2160) and "ⅰ" (0x2170) are apparently treated as Roman numerals, what is what they were intended for in the first place, I suppose. If you want the MediaWiki software to treat them in a case-insensitive way I'd recommend to use bugzilla - maybe check whether there already is some notification of this issue in bugzilla.
  • Also wikipedia:naming conventions (numbers and dates) appears an appropriate place to mention this. Wait (a few minutes) & see: I'll try to give an appropriate mentioning there too, I'd be glad if afterwards you could check whether I formulated this correctly. --Francis Schonken 14:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny afterthought: while it might be tempting to move the "IPod" page to ⅰPod (in which case the "Case" of the first letter would be rendered correctly) I wouldn't do that. eBay might become jealous, while I suppose there wouldn't be a comparable solution for the "e" not auto-converting to "E"... --Francis Schonken 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes, Francis. I guess I need to be fully explicit about my question: I'm trying to do some analysis of links in the corpus, and I'm running into problems building a table of links because I can't figure out what mappings are done, or are not.

For example, say I know that a topic named "Ⅰ" (0x2160) exists, as does a topic named "I". If I find a link to "i", then I know it is OK because "i" is mapped to "I", and "I" exists. If I find a link to "ⅰ" (0x2170), I would also assume it is a valid link because the uppercase of "ⅰ" (0x2170) is "Ⅰ" (0x2160), and "Ⅰ" (0x2160) exists. But I'm wrong—that mapping doesn't happen, apparently because Wikipedia thinks the uppercase of "ⅰ" (0x2170) is "ⅰ" (0x2170), and the uppercase of "Ⅰ" (0x2160) is "Ⅰ" (0x2160).

Where can I find a list that explains how Wikipedia maps uppercase? While your new mention on "naming conventions (numbers and dates)" helps for this very specific case, there are many more Unicode characters than these. --Mikeblas 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You're entering into the "bowels" of the MediaWiki software and/or settings then. Maybe fire your question at irc://irc.freenode.net/mediawiki or irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-tech (see Wikipedia:IRC channels). I'm sure it *should* be documented somewhere at meta: too... At least the m:developers should be able to point you to the file(s) that contain(s)/list(s) such "mappings", and that makes the issue clear. --Francis Schonken 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links; I'll see if I can find an IRC client and ask there. I strongly disagree that this is the bowels of MediaWiki, though. This has to do with properly naming topics and correctly linking to them--something that any Wikimedia editor does almost every time they work on the site. If documentation for it isn't easily available, how can we expect anyone to get it right? --Mikeblas 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the comparison, which maybe was inappropriate.

Thus far, however, this has been a non-issue:

• Letters (apart from ß, that has no upper case) are converted to upper case when appearing first in a page name, numbers are not. Afaik the 0x2160/0x2170 (etc) unicode range are numbers (if not, that should show up at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft), which is currently not the case - I invited you to complete that page in that sense, which is simple: you can do it).
• Apart from use for Roman numerals redirecting to "x (number)" pages, the characters from the 0x2160/0x2170 (etc) unicode range *should not be used in wikipedia page names* (this was what I put in wikipedia:naming conventions (numbers and dates) yesterday + an explicitation that currently no mapping-to-upper-case takes place for these characters).

The rest of it is not en:wikipedia-specific, so I refer to meta:, bugzilla, the m:developers, and the IRC channels where you can find them.

If anything would change on the level of the MediaWiki software (or its settings/mappings) please report back here, and please also indicate whether the setting/mapping was changed *exclusively* for en:wikipedia, or whether the change was adopted for all the Wikimedia projects. tx. --Francis Schonken 06:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping, Francis. I'm not sure I agree that 0x2160 thru 0x2170 are numbers. In fact, The Unicode Standard calls them explicitly "lowercase and upper-case variants" (in Section 14.3 of the Unicode standard). It would only follow, then, that uppercasing a lowercase Roman Numeral would return the uppercase variant. And indeed it does; the Unicdoe character database shows that these characters are uppercased to eachother; see http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/CaseFolding.txt. While I can confidently make this assertion, my question is about what Wikipedia does, not what the Unicode standard says. When the terrain and the map disagree, you have to trust the terrain.

I appreciate your pushing for improvement, but ket me make it clear that I'm not volunteering to fix anything, of even to change anything--I'm just trying to get a question answered so I can write some software to study something larger, and perhaps get 'that' fixed. Further, I can't fix something by documenting it when I don't know how it works in the first place.

If these really are the only exceptions Unicode uppercasing rules, then I have my answer; everything except this works as I would expect, and I can code around it. But I still see no clear documentation that explains how the matching and naming works.

--Mikeblas 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, again, *answering* your questions regarding the lower case → upper case mapping can at this point only safely be done by the MediaWiki developers. This page is in en:wikipedia only, that is only one of the hundreds of projects that run the MediaWiki software. Your questions are situated at software level. The mapping you're asking questions about is something that is done by software settings that are available in "MediaWiki:" namespace at max (I'm not even sure of that). Note that MediaWiki: namespace pages can only be changed by sysops (which I'm not), and that even most sysops wouldn't know what exactly goes on there and how (and wouldn't do substantial changes there without contacting developers, or discussing at wikipedia:village pump (technical)). Yes, en:wikipedia should list all unicode characters that can be used in this wikipedia. Listing them at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft) is a pre-condition to start discussing what should happen with them. I'm not going to discuss this range of letters/numbers (at least not on this page regarding naming conventions in en:wikipedia) without them being properly listed and described in an appropriate place (that is on one of the project pages of en:wikipedia).

If you're only asking what happens with unicode characters that are not listed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft), then again, you're asking the wrong persons in the wrong place. This is a page where policy and guidelines are wrought (or precisized). Things that don't relate to policy/guideline are in the wrong place here. Nonetheless I tried to answer your questions with what I knew. And tried to send you to the correct places to find an answer to your questions. If from these answers would follow that an update of policies/guidelines would be advisable, please report back here. But note I hope you would want to help solve problems if there are any. Don't look at the persons giving answers here as those that *have* to solve the problems thrown in here by people not prepared to help with the fixing (that's the base of wikipedia's "sofixit" attitude, and why I referred to that already several times). And really, as far as I know, and apart from the update to wikipedia:naming conventions (numbers and dates) I performed, what you're talking about is a non-issue for the en:wikipedia community currently, that is, until shown otherwise (for which *at least* listing at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft) would be necessary, as asked several times above). --Francis Schonken 18:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this is the range we're talking about:

2160; C; 2170; # ROMAN NUMERAL ONE
2161; C; 2171; # ROMAN NUMERAL TWO
2162; C; 2172; # ROMAN NUMERAL THREE
2163; C; 2173; # ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR
2164; C; 2174; # ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE
2165; C; 2175; # ROMAN NUMERAL SIX
2166; C; 2176; # ROMAN NUMERAL SEVEN
2167; C; 2177; # ROMAN NUMERAL EIGHT
2168; C; 2178; # ROMAN NUMERAL NINE
2169; C; 2179; # ROMAN NUMERAL TEN
216A; C; 217A; # ROMAN NUMERAL ELEVEN
216B; C; 217B; # ROMAN NUMERAL TWELVE
216C; C; 217C; # ROMAN NUMERAL FIFTY
216D; C; 217D; # ROMAN NUMERAL ONE HUNDRED
216E; C; 217E; # ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE HUNDRED
216F; C; 217F; # ROMAN NUMERAL ONE THOUSAND

• Ⅰ — ⅰ # ROMAN NUMERAL ONE
• Ⅱ — ⅱ # ROMAN NUMERAL TWO
• Ⅲ — ⅲ # ROMAN NUMERAL THREE
• Ⅳ — ⅳ # ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR
• Ⅴ — ⅴ # ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE
• Ⅵ — ⅵ # ROMAN NUMERAL SIX
• Ⅶ — ⅶ # ROMAN NUMERAL SEVEN
• Ⅷ — ⅷ # ROMAN NUMERAL EIGHT
• Ⅸ — ⅸ # ROMAN NUMERAL NINE
• Ⅹ — ⅹ # ROMAN NUMERAL TEN
• Ⅺ — ⅺ # ROMAN NUMERAL ELEVEN
• Ⅻ — ⅻ # ROMAN NUMERAL TWELVE
• Ⅼ — ⅼ # ROMAN NUMERAL FIFTY
• Ⅽ — ⅽ # ROMAN NUMERAL ONE HUNDRED
• Ⅾ — ⅾ # ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE HUNDRED
• Ⅿ — ⅿ # ROMAN NUMERAL ONE THOUSAND

I.e. *numerals*. Whether conversion on the same grounds as for letters would be appropriate is very questionable ⅻ would in that case be autoconverted to Ⅻ, while ⅹⅳ to Xⅳ - which wouldn't make sense. I suppose that is the reason why this range was left out of the first-letter-autoconvert-to-upper-case mapping in wikipedia. This would only make sense if in this range all lower case numbers (whatever position in the composed number) would be autoconverted to upper case. So leaving them out of this MediaWiki feature seems like the more sensible option, for the time being. That is, until a more complex autoconversion algorithm for this range can be decided upon, and implemented: if you want that (for me it doesn't seem like a big priority), then use bugzilla, as mentioned above. --Francis Schonken 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have asked on wikitech-l about the mapping rules, and am awaiting an answer. The topic naming side of the questions are still unsatisfied: if characters in this range "*should not be used in wikipedia page names*", then why are they being used? Should they be deleted? Since these were only documented last week, and there other ranges of characters which are not mapped and should not be used? What are they? Is a list of all unmapped characters available in one spot, instead of piecing together smaller lists from different categorized sections? --Mikeblas 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, more and more there grows a feeling on me (again sorry, can't help it) that you're in a way promoting problems where there are none:

• Are you deliberately chopping of the quote of what is in the date & numbers NC guideline? Again, AGAIN, it says "There is a unicode range of characters that is specifically used for Roman numerals, for example "Ⅰ" (0x2160) and "ⅰ" (0x2170) - such (individual) characters are redirect pages to the corresponding number page: for instance both "Ⅰ" (0x2160) and "ⅰ" (0x2170) redirect to 1 (number). For other uses it is discouraged to use these characters in wikipedia article page names. Note also that no automatic case conversion to upper case takes place when these characters are used as the first character of a wikipedia page name (in other words: "Ⅰ" and "ⅰ" are two different redirect pages)." (my bolding). The guideline *defines* where and when and how they can be used in article names. So stop saying there would be anything in the sense of a general prohibition to use these characters in page names. I asked you to comment on this guideline addition. You didn't, and prefer to continue discussing on the base of what is not in guidelines.
• Again, AGAIN, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft) is an appropriate place to sort things out on en:wikipedia level. Note for instance that, as far as I remember, the "mapping-first-letter-to-upper-case" functionality is disabled for the Wiktionary projects. But afaik all other projects use the mapping. So, deciding on this is inappropriate in en:wikipedia, *unless* if en:wikipedia wants to make an exception to the standard feature of the software (like the wiktionary projects do, and even in that case I think the decision was discussed at meta: too).
• Use of less common unicode characters is also limited by *printability*, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Browser support limitations for a short note on the subject, and wikipedia:naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Printability which gives some practical examples (however, examples focussing on "standard letters with diacritics", but should show the way if you're not acqainted with the issue). Note that this is also the core reason why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft) lists double (for Greek letters triple) tables: only the characters that show up in the leftmost grids *in all usual browser/OS combinations* can be used in page names, except for the general exceptions noted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). So, again, pretty much of this comes down to completing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft), and moving it up from "draft" to a practical manual. I can only conclude that I still see no intention of your side to collaborate to that endeavour. I don't know if you are still requesting that other people "do" things in wikipedia to which you have no intention to collaborate. If that is the case, I suppose we're done on this page. --Francis Schonken 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I also tweaked Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Configuration related limitations a bit (to the best of my abilities), maybe the content of that section (that apparently wasn't updated properly for a long time) was the cause of some confusion (e.g. referring to a "policy" page where the case mapping would have been sorted out: if anyone knows such en:wikipedia "policy" page, please name it!). --Francis Schonken 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#film series questions

Perhaps some of you could give the questions posed there a look and share any thoughts you might have, thanks. Шизомби 22:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Curly vs. straight apostrophes

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Help with Links there is now at least one article with a curly quote in its name. Not suprprisingly, this has confused an editor (the creator of the article, no less). I looked around a bit and didn't find a guideline about this (there is a thread at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)#“Curly” apostrophes). I suspect this will be controversial, but I suggest we add a guideline somewhere that says "use straight quotes in article names". -- Rick Block (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Ligulem 07:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah naming

I would like to post a proposal for the format of naming Muslim clergy. I would like to either create a separate page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy), or post it here. My proposal is that Muslim clergy such as Ayatollahs go with their titles, just like Western clergy. For ayatollahs use the format (Grand) Ayatollah {name} {surname}. For example use Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and not Ali al-Sistani, and Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi and not Mohammad Yazdi. Gryffindor 21:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC) ps: I have created the new discussion page, please voice your opinions there. Gryffindor 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to sound combative, but what is the purpose of this? Are there a lot of cases where ambiguity would exist without adding the title? You say "just like Western clergy", but my perusal of Category:Bishops (or, rather, subcategories of it) indicates that very few bishops have "bishop" in the title of their articles. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So, it's ok for Cardinals to have their name, but not ayatollahs? I am not saying every Islamic clergy should be with their titles, but the highest ones, like in the Christian cases. Gryffindor 13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware of that situation before now, but, no, I don't think it's okay (although I've been inconsistent on the matter in the past). I don't know how it has been justified thus far. I'm not aware of any accepted principle by which Wikipedia would use titles for people especially if they are high-ranking. [added:] Okay, I have since located and read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy). The argument there seems to be that "Cardinal" is not a title but becomes part of the cardinal's name. I don't know whether I find this entirely convincing, but it is, in any case, not an argument in favour of including a title. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets) proposal

The articles about missiles and unguided rockets badly need a naming convention, especially the Russian ones. - Dammit 14:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Conventions

• "It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention."

It goes without saying that the naming conventions are conventions. Does it deserve a whole paragraph? Hyacinth 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth revising this to explain why a page named conventions containing guidelines is marked policy. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

'With' in album titles

It says to capitalize everything but prepositions and conjunctions. Is 'with' either of those? Because my instinct says that Fall Out Boy's Evening Out with Your Girl should be Fall Out Boy's Evening Out With Your Girl. Am I right? And while I'm at it, what about 'for,' 'to/from,' 'in/out,' 'or,' 'on/under/over,' and 'to?' —Akrabbim^talk 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

with is a preposition, so the title is correct. The others should generally be lower case too, unless they're being used adverbially. wiktionary: is very useful. Flowerparty☀ 11:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What about with 'to,' as in "Meant To Live?" Wiktionary says its a particle. —Akrabbim^talk 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be correct, too (see [4] or [5]). I think that the guideline should be expanded to reflect this. Jogers (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How does one promote from proposed to other specific conventions

How does one promote from proposed to other specific conventions? Williamborg 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian patronymic

The naming conventions need to address whether a patronymic is used in titling articles after Russian-born individuals. Some sort of standard needs to exist for reference. Fearwig 20:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Album titles and band names

Shouldn't "through" be capitalized? It is a preposition but all the capitalization guidelines I found on the Internet say that prepositions should be capitalized when longer than few letters (most commonly 4 or 5). Jogers (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

For almost two months there have no new comments there. Although there are some questions, it appears to me there are no objections, and so I'd tentatively say that this proposal has a community support - although of course more comments and objections are always welcomed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, many "old" comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) weren't handled. Looking at that talk page my impression is rather that everyone dropped out, seeing that no consensus was possible on the proposal.

Further (but this is a comparatively minor remark, compared to the apparent lack of consensus) the lay-out of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is a shambles, not fit for a guideline text. Your last layout changes, e.g. putting some core parts of the guideline (the definitions) in small print [6], were rather steps backwards than forwards in that respect, IMHO. --Francis Schonken 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are compatibility problems with active guidelines. Giving only a very few examples of these:

• From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles): "Where the English and Irish names are the same or very nearly the same, but the English and Irish spellings differ, use the English spelling. [...] Example 2: Inishmore, not Inis Mór." - this is incompatible with the approach of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), where the "English spelling" would not be used for the page name in Wikipedia if that spelling is only used in 74% of the cases in the reference works;
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), *active* naming conventions for city names in many countries not compatible with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names);
• etc.

Since most examples in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) are *cities*, one could raise the question whether there's need for a separate guideline here, next to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). --Francis Schonken 06:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that all important comments were addressed, but if you could point out specific omissions we can certainly review them. As for the need for specific NC, well, the project would not be started if the old ones would be enough. I believe that the spark wich ignited the proposal was a (now subsided) giant move war between Ukrainian and Russian spellings, which most certainly were not addressed by the current policies. Although it may be that the policy should be integrated into an existing NC (probably Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) might be the best one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

'Onomastics' in page titles

According to this Wikipedia search, people have been disambiguating page titles by adding the word 'onomastics.' Would anyone agree with me that it would be much clearer to use 'name' instead? --Smack (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also saw articles with etymology (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=etymology&fulltext=Search) or terminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=terminology&fulltext=Search) between brackets and was wondering as well: what is the standard? Brz7 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's different. There's nothing wrong with discussing the etymology of a term or the terminology of a field, and those two words are pretty common. 'Onomastics,' though, had me scrambling to look up the definition as soon as I saw it. --Smack (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Related poll

Interested editors are invited to participate in: a poll on whether or not to use diacritics in the titles of Polish monarchs. --Elonka 18:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church versus Catholic Church

A long and protracted discussion over whether the term "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" is to be preferred in the titles of articles dealing with the institution headed by the Bishop of Rome has reached something of an impasse. I, for one, am willing to be guided by the consensus of editors here. The term "Catholic Church" is used to refer to a single institution, but is also used to refer to churches that self-identify as component Communions thereof. The naming conventions appear ambiguous in this regard, since the term is descriptive. If you have the time and patience to follow the discussions, they can be found at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive3 and Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Fishhead64 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The very word "Catholic" is broader than the church at Rome. See Catholicism. Samuel Curtis 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new general naming convention for non-English proper names

Right now, important part of all Naming conventions disputes is problem of "how to say this proper name in English". Most of non-Latin based languages have no simple and and universally recognized romanization system, usually having several quite different ones; most Latin-based languages can't present their proper names in 26 letters of English alphabet, usually using diacritics and so on. I have been contibuting to Wikipedia for long and I know what the pain in the ass could titles be... Just because we pull along the consequences of en: being encoded in Latin-1 for so long. It just couldn't have titles using anything except 26 English letters.

Absence of simple and generally accepted rule to present any proper name in 26 English letters lead to several consequences.

Problems to solve

1. Pages sometimes use titles totally irrelevant to the subject just because "it is general use in English", "it was used in Britannica" and so on; wrong, but "established" names continue their march instead of being updated to reflect actual situation.
2. There are revert wars and conventions wars due to one or two letters difference in romanization of the title; people waste huge amount of time to fight each other on talk pages on title issues and move pages back and forth instead of improving the article content.
3. Different naming conventions for different languages sometimes lead to opposite rules - e.g. one language's titles use diacritics always, while titles in other language can't use diacritics at all.

That's why I have new proposal. Everybody knows a page can't have more than one title, but any page can have as much title variations in the first sentence as needed. The only problem is that no one could be good enough to choose which one of "title variations" is more right than others.

Proposal for proper names page titles

1. Page title should be written always in native language and native script (while UTF-8 allows it).
2. First sentence of the page should include all widely accepted romanization variants of page title, including variant without diacritics; IPA pronunciation guide should be included wherever possible.
3. Redirects for all names shown in first sentences should be created to be sure everyone finds the page even if he doesn't know the native name.

Advantages of this proposal

1. First of all, near-elimination of POV in page titles. Now you can't name some town in the alphabet you like just because you wish it was occupied by another country; you have to put real name of this town in the title.
2. Significant decrease of time wasted on moves and title quarrels.
3. One and common convention decreases number of rules, eliminates contrary ones, and removes necessity to create new and new romanization conventions for languages; the fewer rules the better.

And remember - English Wikipedia is the most developed Wikipedia of all, it is used and visited by people from all over the world.

Feel free to comment. I hope we can work out something more general than just separate naming conventions for proper names of every single language :). --Monk 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

comments

Hi Monk, I'm not going to comment on your proposal as such (yet), just wanted to draw your attention to some things:

1. If you're serious about this proposal best to list it, with a link to where this discussion is taking place, at WP:UE#Disputed issues. There you'll find a list of other proposals and discussions about these issues.
2. If you didn't already, note the ongoing poll, mentioned above: a poll on whether or not to use diacritics in the titles of Polish monarchs.
3. Also mentioned above, #Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

Greetz, --Francis Schonken 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put link on WP:UE... --Monk 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree with all of this, at least in theory. Standardized implementation would require a complete overhaul of many thousands of articles, though. Still, I think it might be worthwhile. Fearwig 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, would this mean that every reference to the subject of the article would use the non-Romanized form as well? I mean, I think Chinese characters in the middle of an English-language article would be pretty confusing... Now that I think about it, you're going to run into the same problem this tries to solve in the body of the articles, and it can't be solved by using the original characters. For instance, if we use Romanizations for the body of the article (as we should, for clarity) are there going to be fights over which Romanization gets used there, too? I guess I have to change my judgment on this one. Fearwig 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we ever need "complete overhaul" - we just need some clear and justified guideline to solve disputes whenever this disputes are raised. If there are no disputes over article name it could be left unchanged in its Romanized form forever.

Regarding links: first of all, I think it could be solved, and should be solved separately from the issue I've raised; titles are one thing, and links are another. And I see at least several acceptable ways: 1) use 1st romanization from the article linked; 2) use native form with Romanization in brackets; 3) use the most relevant form to the article where link is put. But let's not mix issues. --Monk 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Which "native form"? Not all countries are monolingual. (In the public-domain timezone database, we handled the same sorts of disputes—zone names are limited to the POSIX Portable File Name Character Set—by making our standard "the form most commonly used in English-language documents". This sometimes results in name changes when common practice changes.) 121a0012 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Preferably the form this person prefers or that is official or mostly spoken in this place. If no language could be decided more preferable, than we can switch back to romanized form. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

'In addition to the obvious infeasibility of using Chinese characters in en.wikipedia article titles, I'm not sure that POV in article titling is a big problem. Also, I don't know whether this change will create more or less POV trouble, because it would have a pernicious effect in disputed, multingual areas, such as Kosovo.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be not sure that POV is big problem but it is problem big enough to ensure that, e.g., wikipedians who eager to contribute on Belarusian subjects, have to waste their time to put off russian chauvinists in title quarrels instead of contributing to the content. Areas such as Kosovo have distinguished main language (Albanian in Kosovo, as I understand), which should be used. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem regarding Belarusian place names, and if it is solveable, then why not a naming convention for that particular case, rather than imposing a convention on Vienna, which I don't think anyone is very upset about? Also, I don't think that using Albanian for Kosovo is at all NPOV; consider that Kosovo is also part of Serbia, where Serbian is the dominant language.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where would these page names reside:

• Under which name would this city go? Derry or Londonderry or Doire?

Official name of course, being Londonderry in this case. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You had never said anything about official names up to this point. What about, for instance, Tibet, where the official language is Chinese? Are we going to move Potala Palace to 布達拉宮 (come to think, that might be less bad than moving it to པོ་ཏ་ལ).—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• What about Brussels? or Brussel, or Bruxelles

Bruxelles since it is mostly French-speaking. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable. --Francis Schonken 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Monk 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this proposal a joke??? Francis is correct. The frankly nutty idea is unacceptable. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• What about Vienna?

Wien, of course. They have only official language here, so what the problem? --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this an April Fool's joke??? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• What about Battle of Bulge? Common English name, German name, or formal English name?

Formal name preferred, and if English name has the same relevance as German (since Britain and USA where participants), English name should be chosen. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• What about 1st Belorussian Front?

Not sure if it is proper name; it seems to be just description, so it should be 1st Belarusian Front (not the misspelled name as it is now); if it is proper it should be "Первый белорусский фронт", but cyrillic version is not even mentioned in article, so don't see any point to use it. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this term is equivelant to spelling Munich instead of München, second it is not mispelled, do a google book query if unsure.--Kuban Cossack 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• What about Julius Caesar?

And what's wrong with current state? His name is perfectly written with Latin chars. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, if writing the name according to how his contemporary compatriots wrote it, the article should move to IVLIVS CAESAR (nor "J" nor "U" nor lower case characters existed in his time). Or, other Latin variants, C•IVLIVS•CAESAR or CAIUS IVLIVS CAESAR. If we'd follow the same rules as now some Polish friends would like to see permanently applied to Wladyslaw II Jagiello, Julius Caesar would have to move to Giulio Cesare or Gaio Giulio Cesare. None of this makes sense in English. --Francis Schonken 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• What about Colonel General?

Not proper name. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable examples. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• (adding some more examples to Philip's exellent list:) Jozef de Veuster? Giovanni Battista Montini? Has anyone even any idea who these are? --Francis Schonken 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't see any problems with those. No article on Veuster yet, and Montini's name is perfectly written in Latin charset. --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break, of course this De Veuster has an article, in Flanders he's known as the "greatest Belgian of all times" (as noted in the intro of his Wikipedia article), and Jozef de Veuster is his original Flemish name. You simply have no clue who this is. I just demonstrated that your proposal is bound to create problems:

No way. I just see the link is RED and I didn't perform search, that's why I thought there is no article; I don't see what "red links" (absent redirects) have in common with my proposal. So what's problem to leave it as "Father Damien"? --Monk 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I demonstrated that a proper name, that in its English variant is quite universally recognisable, is made generally unrecognisable when shifting to the "local variant" (so unrecognisable, and so unused in English, that a redirect from that name can easily be missed). Your proposal would make "unrecognisability" the norm, which I don't think a good solution. --Francis Schonken 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hear Hear. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

1. It will create problems where currently there are none;

Possibly, but it is going to solve problems where there are now. --Monk 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

1. (not proven by the example above, but enough experience to state this:) it will only acerbate the problems regarding the articles that have "problematic" page naming currently.

Any example? e.g. I can show you dozens of articles for which switch to cyrillics would save vast amount of time. --Monk 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I won't support this proposal. --Francis Schonken 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see... but yet I don't see real arguments or obstacles except for technical ones. But technical limitations have nothing to say about letters or hieroglyphs, just about punctuation and so on, which is rarely used in proper names. --Monk 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Dokdo or Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since these islands are under control of Korea, may be Korean name should be preferred; but I'm not sure since I'm not good in the subject. Any really dubious situations (like the one with Dokdo) could stay with romanized name. Thanks again --Monk 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, the technical limits are by no way defined by the boundaries of "UTF-8" - They are defined as in wikipedia:naming conventions (technical restrictions). Not even half of UTF-8 can be used in article names technically. Compare wikipedia:naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Printability. --Francis Schonken 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. But most (I could say, almost all used in Wikipedia) proper names could be written in native script even with those restrictions; those restrict mostly punctuation and special cases like two-letter diacritics. Most letters and glyphs of languages now used in the world are usable. --Monk 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, even Hawaiian language which is based on Latin alphabet and exclusively uses UTF-8 characters can't be rendered correctly in page names, because some of its characters are "non-printable" per the current state of the technology. --Francis Schonken 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose any proposal that wants to do things like changing the "Vienna" article to "Wien", the "Brussels" article to "Bruxelles", and other Latin alphabet articles to the Cyrillic alphabet. Wikipedia articles should continue to use the "common name in English" policy, which boils down to, give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. In other words, stick with the conventions of using that name which is most easily recognizable to the majority of non-specialist English speakers. See WP:UE and WP:NAME. The native form can still be used in the body of the article, but the title should always always be in English. --Elonka 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Elonka, I see your point, while don't agree with it... The main problem, which was the cause for this bold proposal, is that most proper names really DON'T have any "common name in English" (e.g. small towns, less known writers and politicians and so on). And there is a fight over every such article. :(. --Monk 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not very correct, most of these proper names occur in English texts... and for the few that are noteworthy and never occurred in English texts before appearing in English Wikipedia - really I wouldn't know which these are - there are still transliteration systems: Wikipedians have agreed on these for most languages not based on Latin alphabet. The only problem is when in English texts several versions occur nearly as often, or when it can't very well be determined which version occurs most often in English texts. Jumping to a version that is nearly never used in English texts in such case is irresponsive absurdity. It happened to Lech Walesa. Noone is served by such absurdity which, on the whole, lowers the quality and credibility of Wikipedia, while it shows to everyone who visits the website how much grip nationalistic pressure groups, that lack basic understanding of how the English language works, have on English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose this proposal. In most cases where controversy exists, this will just multiply the number of naming variations over which to squabble. (Would you rename John Cabot Giovanni Caboto?)

For argument's sake, why on Earth wouldn't we romanize foreign names, so Moscow would be renamed Moskva instead of Москва, Kiev Kyiv, instead of Київ, Hong Kong could remain Hong Kong (or is that Heūng Góng?), certainly more useful than 香港. Certainly each of these should be a redirect, of course. —Michael Z. 2006-06-26 23:57 Z

I agree, and Monk, this will not counteract Lacinka's eradication even if it is pushed through. --Kuban Cossack 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this proposal is crazy. In the first place, I'm going to suggest that not transliterating names in foreign alphabets is surely completely unacceptable. I can't even see Chinese, etc. characters on my computer, as of now (I just see ??? or ?????), and I assume a pretty fair number of other potential users are in the same boat, perhaps even to a greater extent. Also, with people there's frequently no good way to do this. Any princess who marries someone from a different country, for instance. Do we have Anne d'Autriche or Doña Ana d'Austria, Infanta d'España? Marie Antoinette or Maria Antonia? Henriette Marie de France or Henrietta Maria of France? This is unresolvable. So is, say, Emperor Charles V. His own native language would've been either French (Charles) or Flemish (Karel); he was the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, which predominantly spoke German (Karl), the King of Spain (Carlos), and of Naples (Carlo). How are we to choose among these? The Brussels instance remains unsettled as an example of a place name with several local names. What about Dublin? The official language of the Republic of Ireland is Irish, not English. Would we have to move it to Baile Átha Cliath, in spite of the fact that it is called "Dublin" by the vast majority of its own inhabitants? This just isn't going to happen. john k 01:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is so ridiculous my first thought was that it was an April Fool's joke. Why on earth would we move pages from the form universally recognised to a form on a tiny number of people would recognise. Regarding John's mention of Dublin: most Irish people cannot even spell Baile Átha Cliath much less use it. Under no circumstances would it be acceptable to write Bruxelles, Wein, Baile Átha Cliath, etc. None whatsoever. It would simply make WP a complete laughing stock. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I find Monk's proposals very interesting, but I think he goes too far. I hope I'll have one day the courage to write in length my own proposal on this issue, and that procrastination won't stop me again. In brief, we must make a clear distinction between names that must keep their original form (I don't enter in the details now, but it means roughly proper names of people and of small or little known geographical places) and names that must been tranlated, or adapted, or replaced by English equivalent or English established forms: country names, some famous geographical places, historical figures like Christopher Columbus (not contemporary figures), popes and European kings (Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden must be spelled Charles XVI Gustav like Charles X Gustav...) and names of some institutions. This distinction is already a great problem by itself, and I hope I'll write more in detail on it.

About names of the first kind (those that must keep their original form): I agree proper names from languages written with a Latin alphabet (not the Latin alphabet, there are so many variants) must be written with their original spelling, with all their diacritics, and even with their extra letters (Leoš Janáček, Nguyễn Minh Triết, Franz Josef Strauß, İlham Əliyev...) There mustn't be any exception to this principle. One problem with the policy used today is some modified letters are accepted, and other not. Turkish alphabet is respected in titles (see İsmet İnönü), but Azerbaijani alphabet is not because there is one more letter , "ə", and it has been decided here that this letter was not acceptable. After a long dispute, İlham Əliyev has been renamed into Ilham Aliyev because of its "ə", and the dot on the "i" was lost because the whole spelling of Azerbaijani words was then judged unacceptable. But only hours later a user renamed this article into İlham Aliyev without any concertation or vote (and nobody did protest!) He renamed every other Azerbaijani names the same way, changing every "ə" into "a". Such decisions lead to absurd results, as in Abülfaz Elçibay (see the footnote in this article) with a spelling used only on Wikipedia and nowhere else!! Will we have to vote on every modified letter one by one to judge if the letter is "acceptable" or not? Rather to invent new spellings, it's better to respect the whole spelling, and if there is a very curious letter (ß, ð, þ, ə...) it's so simply to add a note on its pronounciation, as it was made on French Wikipedia. This note can even been made by a Template.

But names from languages that don't use a Latin alphabet must be translitterated or transcribed with a well established system. Monk's concern was that in such cases there is no "well established system" accepted by all. By such systems exist, and they're even detailed on Wikipedia. For example, Russian must be transcribed following the article Romanization_of_Russian#Conventional_transcription_of_Russian_names. Such pages can be created for every other alphabet and votes can take place for controversies directly on the pages' talk page.

I think clear rules can be found. Or at least, far clearer rules than the existing ones. There is already something written here on this issue, but it is particullary vague and unusable. We can do better. Švitrigaila 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply think that transliteration applies not only to completely foreign character sets, but "slightly" foreign ones, too, which use largely the same characters, but diacritics to expand the character set. If it's good enough for Chinese or Russian, it's good enough for Czech or Finnish. Doogie2K (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WHEELS

Hello, just noticed that WHEELS is in your "confusing" list, but it's getting changed to a disambig page, so maybe you will want to take it off. Cheers. lensovet 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Article location: Aldude or Aldudes

Hi, hopefully this is the best place to ask about this; if not, please feel free to move my post to a different location.

This is regarding the stub Aldudes, which is a very small town in the Basque area of France. Aldudes is the French name for the town, and Aldude is the Basque name. As this is a Basque town, I thought it more proper that the article title reflect the language of those who actually live there, so I changed it to Aldude a while ago. It was recently changed back, however.

I searched through the MOS, but couldn't find any guidelines as to which name is best to use. It is my first impression that the language spoken by the inhabitants of the town should be the deciding factor, but if there is a policy favoring the French name, I will accept it. Thanks for any information/advice, romarin [talk ] 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

From the policy page: "[...] article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize [...]". Now, let's see what English speakers "would most easily recognise":

• about 186 English pages for Aldudes basque OR euskadi -wikipedia
• about 33 English pages for Aldude basque OR euskadi -wikipedia

"Aldudes" appears to be the "most common name" in English. What is spoken there is of no relevance for article naming in English Wikipedia (if that's what you were looking for in the guidelines: it isn't there). In Den Haag (Dutch name) they speak Dutch. Yet the article is at The Hague (a purely English name, which makes it even more easy to determine what is "most used in English") --Francis Schonken 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. I had previously seen information about using English names in titles (such as in your The Hague example), but as neither Aldude nor Aldudes is an English word, I wasn't sure in this case. romarin [talk ] 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue. The Hague is not really comparable, I think, because in this case the tiny number of Google hits reported shows (as we already know, really) that the majority of English speakers would not recognise any name at all for this village. (Anyway Wikipedia:Use English seems to advise against relying on Google comparisons, if I understand it correctly.) In these circumstances, I can understand the preference for the name used by the majority of natives (i.e. the Basque form). Against this, there is some sense in using the name that would be found on maps, in telephone directories and in postal addresses, because comparability between Wikipedia and other reference sources is encouraged and is a worthwhile aim.

I think that probably suggests using the French form, at present, though once can imagine a change in the future if the commune of Aldudes decides to change its name officially to Aldude. Andrew Dalby 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of "Album titles and band names"

The above portion of this policy states, "In titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for)..." A question has arisen regarding the applicability of this to band names. See this diff: [7]. In my opinion, "for" should be capitalized in this case since it is part of the band's name and would be consistent with its website, album covers, etc. An alternative interpretation is explained in this diff: [8]. The policy should be clarified to reflect whichever option is deemed by the community to be the correct one. Thanks in advance for your input. Accurizer 12:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case "for" is the last word of the band's name, anyway. It should be capitalized. Jogers (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the whole "or the last word" part. I'll revert my changes. Sorry about the mess. But other than that, I think "for" should not be capitalised in band names and the policy should be exteded to "In band names and titles of songs or albums, ...". --HarryCane 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It isn't very clear now. Jogers (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit ambiguous. Because if I read it correctly, it says that: The word 'to' when used to form an infinitive ("to" functioning as particle), should be capitalized. While this [9] discussion tells something else. So I am lost as to the naming convention on this.(83.118.38.37 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

Why are animal names capitalised ?

The conventions state:

Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized

Yet animal names are routinely capitalised in article names as well as in the text of the articles (e.g. Water Buffalo, African Pygmy-Kingfisher.

This seems clearly wrong to me. I do not talk about my pet Dog - it's a dog, lower-case. Likewise, water buffalo. Bird-watching guides and other such sources might capitalise names, but this doesn't represent common English usage.

Note also that http://webster.com/, http://www.infoplease.com and http://reference.com/ do not capitalise animal names, except for place names making up part of a name, such as the African in a name like "African pygmy-kingfisher" Tasmanian in "Tasmanian devil."

Has this already been discussed and resolved by consensus? If so, a note should be put in the conventions (with a link to the discussion); if not, then I propose we start changing the article names, and the capitalisation of animal names within articles, to conform to convention. --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 05:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to make sense that the name of a species is a proper noun, but individuals are not. So those woodpeckers on the tree are examples of the Pileated Woodpecker. —Michael Z. 2006-06-27 00:04 Z

Military conflicts and operational names

seeWikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Article names and recent discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Using operational names

Given

• the propagandistic nature of many operation names and
• the fact that they were chosen just by one side of the conflict, and
• the fact that often many readers will have no idea what the operation names stands for

operational names should be avoided when describing military conflicts. Instead, the most common name should be used, e.g. Iraq War instead of Operation Iraqi Freedom. If there is none, a descriptive one should be chosen, e.g. United States invasion of Panama instead of Operation Just Cause. Añoranza 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#Using operational names and as I pointed out there this is more complicated than that: Sometimes the operation name is the only thing there is to describe the operation e.g. Operation Hurricane (1944) and It would look odd to remove all mention of Operation Market Garden from Wikipedia as that is the name this attack in usually known as.; another few example to do with Soviet World war II operational names, and the use of the same operational name more than once. The current advice given on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Article names is:

Articles should generally have titles like Battle of Gettysburg or Siege of Nuremberg, since "battle" and "siege" are neutral terms that are preferred to "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid". Other names can be used, however, if they are the most common ways to refer to the battle (so Attack on Pearl Harbor and Doolittle Raid are acceptable titles).

If disambiguation is needed, the year may be added in parentheses (e.g. Battle of Salamis in Cyprus (306 BC)). Two battles at the same place in the same year should be called "First", "Second", and so forth (e.g. First Battle of Zurich and Second Battle of Zurich).

Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.

Which I think about covers the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So that the discussion can be kept in one place, I suggest that an further discussion on this subject takes place under [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Using operational names so that parts of the conversation already covered do not have to be repeated here and because most of those interested in the names of military history articles are more likely to watch that page than this one. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As at military history project only guidelines are made and many users are not aware of it, the naming conventions talk page is a better place to discuss. Furthermore, the naming conventions do not only apply to article titles but also to texts in articles. But thanks for pointing out that there already has been some talk. As I wrote, if there is no common name, a descriptive one should be chosen. Añoranza 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please use the existing locatino where you already participated. Some users have asked questions in regards to comments you have made, this information is rather important to gather and your further participation is appreciated. Unfortunatly it would be quite messy to move that entire discussion here, so we welcome your comments where you have already begun maknig them. Thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are occassions where the use of operational names is justified. No blanket policy will cover every scenario. This user is so hell bent on their agenda that any reasoning will not suffice. Each case should be taken on a case by case basis. So far the encyclopedia has been pretty good at determining where and when they apply. I say we keep it as is.--Looper5920 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why this is the correct place to discuss. If there are open questions at another page please tell me where on my talk page, I cannot see through that messy other page, last things I saw there were ad hominem attacks. Añoranza 12:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As the above user has pointed out, the discussion is located Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Using_operational_names that is a direct link, it will take you to the exact place of the discussion. Only 5 comments have been added since you last participated in that section, so it should not be too hard to locate. Thank you for your cooperation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear, the "Naming conventions" page is for discussing, curiously enough, article names. What you're proposing is quite unrelated to that, since your concern is the use of particular words in article text. Kirill Lokshin 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As there currently is no naming convention for miltary conflict articles, this is the right place. If you can point out a further page where naming conventions for article text can be found, that would be appreciated. I would say that the reasoning for article names usually holds for in text names, too. Añoranza 12:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You have already begun discussing this on the MILHIST page, are you stating you will not be participating there further? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're truly curious, the actually relevant page would be Wikipedia:Words to avoid rather than any of the naming convention pages. Nevertheless, it is impolite, at best, to abandon an ongoing discussion in favor of venue shopping simply because you haven't been able to convince anyone of your points. Kirill Lokshin 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote, last thing I saw there were ad hominem attacks, I find the discussion there hard to follow, and I have been repeatedly told that it is not the right place there. Thanks for pointing out "words to avoid". However, as this is also about article names, this is the correct place to discuss them. Añoranza 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on having a discussion here, then please do limit it to the question of article names rather than trying to spread it to issues unrelated to the purpose of this page.

In any case, even if you find the previous discussion hard to follow, there is little excuse for trying to start it over in a new place without so much as a notification in the place where the discussion has been happening all along. Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, after having been called "ass clown", "POV pusher" and what not I am just fed up with ad hominem attacks. Añoranza 20:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Operational names should be allowed wherever they are the most common name to refer to an operation or exercise. Johntex\^talk 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Moreover, in protracted conflicts, temporal or geographic placemarkers aren't generally effective. E.g. U.N. interventions in Somalia. Are we talking about the UN intervention (UNOSOM I & II), or one of the several U.S. operations (Restore Hope I&II, United Shield). Blurring the title into a sentence listing time, place, and major combatants is silly. The most common or most distinct name should be used. --Mmx1 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That specific article has been requested to be moved to UNOSOM II. Neutral names must be used. Añoranza 20:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It also been brought up that the Operation Restore Hope article is only about the US portion of the UNOSOM II issue. I keep telling this above user to perhaps make a UNOSOM II article, however they do not seem to want to. THe current article focuses solely on the US involvement, hence why its named after the operation, and not named UNOSOM II, the UNOSOM II article redirects there because there is no UNOSOM II article reffering to only the UN or the UN and all its member nations involvement. One should be created, the current one should not be renamed to something it is not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is currently under a non-neutral term. Furthermore, this is a general discussion, not about any particular article. Añoranza 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note to new readers - Añoranza is taking this discussion to tens of pages in an effort to find a venue where people will agree with him. Johntex\^talk 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with pointing out a discussion to people who have previously shown interest in such things. People who will take the subject seriously and give well-reasoned replies are always welcome to any discussion, no matter how they happened to run across it in the first place. This is not a straw poll. --Fastfission 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, the complaint is that he's trying to restart the central discussion itself in new places every time it becomes apparent that he won't get obliging agreement. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the POV issue, which I think is separate from the "do operation names make good article titles?" issue (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Operation Paperclip is a better title than "American effort to extract German scientists after World War II"), I think the simple guideline should be that any operation title which is meant to prejudice one into feelings about the operation itself should not be used. Operation Paperclip, for example, does not such thing—one does not feel one way or the other about it from the name alone. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Just Cause, and so forth, are definitely (blatant) attempts to give an operation a "positive" spin (whatever one thinks about the value of such operations, the fact that the names are POV should be easy enough to admit). In such cases, a more descriptive title should definitely be used ("Invasion of Panama by the United States" or something like that). This is pretty much common sense, as far as I can tell, but I've seen arguments about it, mostly based on the fallacious argument that the MOS says that "the most commonly known name in English should be used" for the title (MOS is very useful but it does not in any circumstances trump the NPOV policy—as Jimbo has articulated, nothing trumps NPOV). This seems to me like a fairly self-evident and simple way to deal with it -- if the name itself is obviously meant to a POV statement, then we should use a more descriptive and neutral name. This is an obvious interpretation of the NPOV policy, which is the guiding policy here. --Fastfission 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit more convoluted than that ;-)

The issue is not limited to article titles, but also extends to efforts to prohibit the use of certain names within other articles; a more complete breakdown of the discussion can be seen here. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and naming convention conflicts

In the archives there is a section (Archive 6) Guidelines or policy dated 9 November 2005. The conversation clearly indicates that at that time this Policy was not a policy but a collection of guidelines. (This subject was touched on in another section (Archive 7) Page Titles and POV).

The archives show that up until November 2005, that the guideline "priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" was overruled by WP:NPOV policy.

The change in this guideline to a policy has started to throw up cases where the Naming Conventions can be in conflict with WP:NPOV. Two recent examples are #Military conflicts and operational names and Talk:Dokdo‎].

I think that words need to be added to this policy that if it is a choice between different names which are in common usage, then if one name better complies the WP:NPOV policy then it should be chosen, even if it is not the most common. This was the position before this guideline became a policy and I think that inclusion of subserviance to NPOV would be preferable to the two policies being in conflict. Particulary as the NPOV policy says:

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

This can not be sidestepped by saying that a name is not part of the content of an article as WP:MOS#Article titles states:

If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the predicate). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style". In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence.

This makes the article name part of the content of an article and therefore potentially subject to WP:NPOV --Philip Baird Shearer 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Article names are subject to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Always have been. For reference, see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names.

I object to erroneous quotes, you quoted the basic formulation of the naming conventions policy as:

"priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"

The policy page has:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, [...] (my bolding)

"Generally" means that there can be exceptions, and I think there can't be any doubt that if "NPOV" is in conflict with a specific naming conventions guideline, that then NPOV should win (non-negotiably).

Anyway, the basic NC policy formulation,

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

is an explicitation of NPOV for article titles too (while it tries to get rid of, e.g., specific pressure groups' naming preferences that steer for less recognisable names). If subsequent guidelines wander, specifically if they wander in the direction of less NPOV takes on the general NC principle, they should be brought in line with the general principle again. --Francis Schonken 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

To give an example, lately at wikipedia talk:neutral point of view there was some pushing to "re-state" pseudoscience to alternative science or something in that vein, intended to affect page names too. NPOV was kept in article content, as in page names, by calling pseudoscience by the name it is best known by, that is: "pseudoscience", not giving way to pressure groups. --Francis Schonken 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had made myself clear but your statement "Article names are subject to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Always have been. For reference..." makes me wonder! Until the recent controversies, I had assumed that, because before this guideline became a policy it was true, it still was. But where does it explicitly say that "Article names are subject to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" as both are policies now? How is a person new to Wikipedia to know that, and what makes you think it is still true unless it is included in this policy? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you trying to get at? For example, what you wrote above:

The archives show that up until November 2005, that the guideline "priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" was overruled by WP:NPOV policy.

... where did you get that? In November 2005 wikipedia:naming conventions was "policy", not "guideline" - I think at that time WP:NC had already been policy over half a year, in fact as far as I can remember it was made "policy" around the same time as WP:NPOV was made policy, probably sowewhere early 2005 or late 2004, because before that time there wasn't even a distinction between "policies" and "guidelines". Feel free to check that chronology, and report about it.

At all times NPOV, together with WP:V & WP:NOR, overruled, overrules, and will probably continue to overrule all other policies and guidelines, while NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable", so whatever you do WP:NPOV has "absolute and non-negotiable" at the top of the page, while the NC policy had, has, and probably will continue to have "Generally, [...]", and not a single word about non-negotiability or "absoluteness" superseding WP:NPOV.

Also the formulation

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

is an explicitation of how NPOV applies to page names, not something that is, generally, in competition with NPOV. And for these *exceptional* cases where there might seem a slight difference between WP:NC policy and WP:NPOV policy, it is WP:NPOV that gets, or should get, precedence (evidently, while "absolute"). Fixed-wing aircraft might be seen as such an instance where NPOV got precedence over the general NC principle. Are you not OK with that?

Maybe it's because I'm stupid, but I apparently can't grasp what you're trying to portray as a problem? --Francis Schonken 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't think anyone has seriously questioned that WP:NPOV applies to everything, whether it's explicitly stated anywhere or not. The fact that there are (and always will be) disagreements about how best to apply NPOV to any particular case doesn't really suggest that the principle itself is somehow in doubt. Kirill Lokshin 15:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've generally found that anyone who goes on and on about how NPOV is "non-negotiable" and is almost certainly themselves a POV pusher. Generally, they insist that their preferred option is the only "NPOV choice" and then insist on it and claim that all the other options are POV and unacceptable, and thus should be discarded in the absence of a consensus to do so. As Francis notes, I think the basic idea of the "most common name" rule is to explain how NPOV works in the case of article titles, not to be an exception to NPOV. The two are complementary. john k 17:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in looking into the entrails of the history of this page and am willing to give way on the issue to anyone who wishes to look it up, or can remember it. But as the pages stand at the moment there is no hierarchy of policies page names, and common usage and NPOV can be in conflict. I am suggesting that this policy page explicitly mentions that NPOV should be taken into consideration when deciding on a page name, because I do not understand that this policy with or without the word "Generally" before "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" is explicitly accommodating to NPOV.

Kirill after the long discussion about operational names I am surprised that you do not see that this issue is relevant. If the most common name for an operation fails the NPOV test then this policy is in direct conflict with it the NPOV policy. Without this point being explicitly acknowledged on this page, I do no see how one can argue that NPOV should take precedent. Even if one can, I see that without an acknowledgement of the precedent on this page, it can lead to unnecessary debate over the name of a page, which could be removed by a specific mention of the NPOV policy on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the topic of the debate is not whether we should ignore NPOV—nobody in their right mind would suggest that—but whether a specific name (or group of names) meets the criteria for use set forth in the NPOV policy (which, as you may recall, calls for articles to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each"; this is often—but not always—interpreted as using the most common name in the case of article titles). I have no objection to explicitly mentioning NPOV on this page (although I think it's not necessary); but doing so won't actually resolve the dispute. Kirill Lokshin 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Rockets associated with space

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (rockets):

The purpouse of this naming convention is to standardise naming for ICBMs and space launch vehicles. It also covers other forms of ballistic misslies, such as IRBMs, and sounding rockets.

So far I have found 13 different ways of naming them - obviously this is a mess, so they need to be standardised. I have reccomended that the best naming convention would be to use the name, followed by the term rocket in parenthesis. This could be used in conjunction with a name only format where appropriote, for example a page could be located at Titan III, but with a redirect at Titan III (rocket) rather than the other way around. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cemeteries

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

I agree with your proposal. -Will Beback 19:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chemical elements when written out are common nouns in English, and not to be capitalized. This includes isotope names when written out

IUPAC is pretty clear about this, and so is the literature, where you'll read carbon-14 and not Carbon-14 (unless at the beginning of a sentence. IUPAC Provisional Recommendations for the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (2004) (online draft of an updated version of the "Red Book"). Of course, all chemical symbols remain capitalized, whether used as isotope symbols or not. So it's C or C-14 or ¹⁴C. Steve 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that it's Wikipedia policy that all article names begin with a capital letter. --JeffW 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Wasn't suggesting anything else, there (e.g. element articles). Caps in the first word of article subheadings are also fine. This is like caps at sentence beginnings.Steve 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrative division may have an alternative name ?

i will briefly present the following situation in Romania:

1) Romania has 6.6% magyar ethnic minority

2) Mureş County is an administrative division of Romania, and has 39.3% magyar ethnic minority

3) Targu Mures is a city in Mures County, and has 46.73% magyar ethnic minority

3) currently the magyar name of Targu Mures is provided as an Wikipedia:Alternative name (article deviced by me) in the lead paragraph of Targu Mures wikiarticle. the editors reasons for providing the magyar name is the Targu Mures locality has a significant/relevant percent of magyar population (officialy if an ethnic minority counts for over 20% of a locality population, the name employed by that ethnic minority is advertised on the panels at the entry of the city along side the romanian name)

2) currently the magyar name of Mures County is provided as an alternative name in the lead paragraph of Mures county article. the editors reasons for providing the magyar name is the Mures county has a significant/relevant percent of magyar population

1) currently there is no magyar name of Romania provided as an alternative name in the lead paragraph of Romania article. i couldnt identify the reason for why isnt the magyar name provided as an alternative name. i asked User:Ronline (who is a member of the Mediation Comitee and a sysop) to explain to me the reason for not providing a magyar name. i am still waiting for an answer from him.

my POV is providing an alternative name in an ethnic minoritiy's language for an administrative division of a state signifies that that administrative division is administrated by the respective ethnic minoritiy (as an autonomous administrative division). Criztu 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you mean that giving a Hungarian name as an alternative (e.g. in the first sentence of the article) implies that that adm. division is governed by Hungarians, then I don't share your POV. IMO it implies that Hungarian is a relevant language in that adm. division, or that it is also known under the Hungarian name in English texts. Markussep 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

then providing the magyar name of Romania as an alternative name, would have the same reasoning ? Criztu 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having the Hungarian name there. See for instance Belgium: the German minority (officially recognized) is only 0.7% of the population, but the German name is in the lead sentence. But if you prefer a higher treshold (e.g. 10 or 20%), that's fine with me. Markussep 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

since there is a romanian ethnic minority in Hungary (0.8%), following the same reasoning, would it be relevant/justifiable/acceptable to provide the romanian name of Hungary as alternative name for Hungary in the leading paragraph of its coresponding article ? Criztu 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's OK. The alternative name has nothing to do with governance, and expresses no opinion on ethnic conflicts. It simply documents. Some pages have 3 or 4 alternatives listed.

But remember, the Wikipedia:Lead section is just a summary of the main points. When there are more than a few, they should be listed in the History or Population (or whatever relevant) section in the body.

Don't forget to make a redirect for each alternate name (Magyar or whatever) to its page with {{R from alternate language}}.

--William Allen Simpson 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Detective Conan/Case Closed?

Original Discussion: Talk:Case Closed#Moved to "Case Closed"?

Although this discussion was last year, it still lacked a consensus up to now, so I should bring it here.

Background: This anime/manga series was started in 1994(manga)/1996(anime), and from the start the official name as given by Japan is Detective Conan.

In 2003, supposedly under the pressure of TMS and also due to the trademark issue with Conan the Barbarian, anime producer in Japan, US anime distributor FUNimation changed the title of the series to Case Closed, and anglized the names of major characters. VizMedia, the manga distributor for the manga in US, also followed this set of renaming and anglizations. The UK manga distributor used a sub-licence from VizMedia and and is also Anglized. However, English-using elsewhere continue to use the name Detective Conan since it was the Japanese official.

Issue:

1. In this case, the naming of all articles related to this series should follow to Japanese names or Anglo-American names?
2. When other articles refer to this series and/or its characters, it is the Japanese or the Anglo-American names?

Samuel Curtis 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WkiProject participants

There really needs to be a naming convention for the categories of WikiProject participants. They are currently all over the "map." My current favorite naming convention for these categories is Participants in WikiProject (name).

Here is a list of how some are named:

• Members of WikiProject (name)
• WikiProject (name) members
• WikiProject (name) Members
• Participants of WikiProject (name)
• WikiProject (name) participants
• WikiProject (name) Participants
• (name) WikiProject members
• User WP(name)
• User (name)

Can we please come up with one way to name these categories?
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest something of the form "WikiProject [name] [members/participants]", as that would match the more commonly used names for other project categories (e.g. "WikiProject [name] articles", "WikiProject [name] templates", etc.) Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What word to you prefer participants or members? - LA @ 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that "members" is the more obvious term. I suppose the exact term used varies with the project, though, so forcing all projects to adopt one or the other might step on some toes. Kirill Lokshin 23:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think members sounds like something that you would join in a more formal sense than is done for a Wikiproject. --JeffW 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So go with [[WikiProject (name) participants]]? - LA @ 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A massive renaming is on the board HERE. Please comment. - LA @ 00:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ice on Fire

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

New project (Regional English)

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

Proposal: parentheses for programming and other languages

We, the undersigned, note that programming languages have distinct names like other objects (sensu Wittgenstein 1921) of everyday parlance; for instance, Perl, Python and C#. Convention on Wikipedia is that when several subjects share the same name, as in the case of python the snake and python the programming language, a modifier is appended in parentheses to distinguish the articles, e.g. Enlightenment (concept) and Enlightenment (X window manager). Only what can be properly considered the name of the object described goes before the parentheses by convention.

We believe that programming languages are tools in the same way as other software, for instance Blender (software), COPS (software) and Multisync (software); indeed, they are objects that can be referred to by their names and properties. We therefore question the convention that they be treated differently in having article names such as Python programming language, when the correct name of the language is simply "Python".

We include in this proposal the suggestion that the same convention be adopted for all communication protocols, machine or human, including written and spoken language, since we see no case for these being different, and indeed, existing Wikipedia guidelines do not state any reason for the convention of omitting the parentheses in these cases.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Piet Delport 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

--Ideogram 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also some relevant discussion on the Python article's talk page. --Piet Delport 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of prepositions

Under "Album Titles and Band Names", the MOS says this:

Convention: In band names and titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (in, to, over, through), articles (an, a, the), or the word 'to' when used to form an infinitive.

I beg to differ--it is not the standard rule in English to lowercase the names of long prepositions in titles. If you doubt me, try googling "i'm looking through you" and tell me how long it takes you to find one that is capitalized "I'm Looking through You". It's weird-looking.

I don't know that there is a standard rule on when to start capitalizing prepositions; AP uses four letters, I think some other style guides use five. I'm going to be bold and suggest that WP go with five. Nareek 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)