Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Strengthen COMMONNAME: r to Casliber |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Strengthen COMMONNAME: r to Will Beback |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
* '''Strong oppose''' for reasons explained by Hesperian. • [[User_talk:Rabo3|<span style="color:darkblue">''Rabo³''</span>]] • 12:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
* '''Strong oppose''' for reasons explained by Hesperian. • [[User_talk:Rabo3|<span style="color:darkblue">''Rabo³''</span>]] • 12:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. Naming conventions exist for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. Naming conventions exist for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*Naming ''policy'' exists for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion. I don't think it's clear at all that what many of the specific naming guidelines say is said for good reasons. A lot of them appear to have been formed by small groups of biased specialists focused on their particular area, with little or no regard to the goal of naming consistency throughout Wikipedia. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. I'm happy to see this resolved in a way that supports common sense. That means if there is a common name use it, don't use a scientific or obscure name when an English common name is available. Also, understand that since for many articles that share a common name, disambiguation is the first choice for the main name space when primary usage is not clearly established. What we have today is chaos! I have said over the years, that this policy is part of our style sheet and as such it should produce predictable results. As a side effect, it should reduce conflict and extended discussions of article names. It should also reduce editor confusion. My gut says that either model 1 or 2 could work. That means we may only need to tweak the current wording. I'm just not sure what that change is or how easy it would be to reach a consensus. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. I'm happy to see this resolved in a way that supports common sense. That means if there is a common name use it, don't use a scientific or obscure name when an English common name is available. Also, understand that since for many articles that share a common name, disambiguation is the first choice for the main name space when primary usage is not clearly established. What we have today is chaos! I have said over the years, that this policy is part of our style sheet and as such it should produce predictable results. As a side effect, it should reduce conflict and extended discussions of article names. It should also reduce editor confusion. My gut says that either model 1 or 2 could work. That means we may only need to tweak the current wording. I'm just not sure what that change is or how easy it would be to reach a consensus. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*Common sense suggests that works best for operas is not what might work best for plants, and that the best common sense solution for Kosovo related articles many not work so well for companies. The limitations of a single top down solution is what has lead to the plethora of naming conventions listed by Melburnian. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]] [[User talk:Sabine's Sunbird|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]] 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
:*Common sense suggests that works best for operas is not what might work best for plants, and that the best common sense solution for Kosovo related articles many not work so well for companies. The limitations of a single top down solution is what has lead to the plethora of naming conventions listed by Melburnian. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]] [[User talk:Sabine's Sunbird|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]] 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:55, 10 June 2009
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Article names for events which are primarily about a person
Sorry for slightly convoluted title!
There is an AfD currently underway for Samantha Orobator. As part of that discussion there have been some suggestions to rename to something like Case of Samantha Orobator. I'm a bit undecided as to what the correct naming should be. On the one hand, the article is not a biography as such, in that it is specifically about a person in relation to a specific event. On the other hand, most people searching would probably just look for the name of the person.
In terms of other articles, I note that for Madeleine McCann, the article is called Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, with redirects to that page.
I was just wondering if there was a consensus for how to approach this type of situation. Quantpole (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, if a person is only notable for one event, then the article should be named after the event, not the person, and be structured to emphasize the notability of the event over that of the person.--Aervanath (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Slash in name
It's not that clear if the / symbol is allowed. Please see my comments at Talk:Good_cop/bad_cop#Name.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've commented over there, too, but in general there shouldn't be a problem with it, as long as it complies with the rest of the naming conventions.--Aervanath (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A related issue is # in the name, which does seem to be a problem. See Talk:Bam Margera Presents: Where the#Name. Any advice welcome, and perhaps WP:NC#Special characters needs some expaansion. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Good cop/bad cop#Name
I think this article should be renamed to remove the / symbol from the name. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid_non-alphanumeric_characters_used_only_for_emphasis and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Subpages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think there is a good technical reason for not using / as it creates a sub-page. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those two policies just say "page names should avoid beginning with non-alphanumeric characters" and "do not intentionally use slashes to make subpages". Is the "good technical reason" still an issue, in modern Wikipedia? (An article like AC/DC doesn't appear to have any hacks or warnings on it.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good point, I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Slash_in_name.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Subpages are disabled in the article namespace, so the use of the / character is not a problem. As long as "Good cop/bad cop" is the WP:Most common name (as opposed to, say, "Good cop-bad cop", with a hyphen), then there is no reason it should be a problem. (Note: I'm not actually suggesting which one is more common, I'm just using it as an example.) Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Bam Margera Presents: Where the#Name
Wikipedia:NC#Special_characters doesn't mention # but it should. Unfortunately, # is used to identify anchors within the page, that's the problem here. Unsure what the best solution is here, but it's not RM. I'll pursue further, the request is not lost! Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made the problems with the use of the special characters more explicit in the Naming Convention.
At the moment the advise given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Characters totally forbidden in page titles is "However, it may be necessary to spell out the character (e.g. Gtk Sharp instead of Gtk#) or use another substitute" we could add to that "like '♯' for of '#'" Should we add Zundark idea? It seems to me that it may cause more problems than it solves as most people will not have access to ♯ on their keyboard when entering searches in search engines (and would probably not notice the difference unless it was pointed out to them), but after brief check with Google, Google seems to substitute one for the other as it does with many other similar characters (Could someone please verify this?). What do others think? --PBS (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath are subpages also disabled from article talk pages? Should we mention in the naming convention that "/" in a name is depreciated unless reliable sources also use "/" in a name. --PBS (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Subpages are not disabled in the article talk namespace. I've thought about the possibility of this causing issues before, but I haven't come across any cases where there actually was an issue.--Aervanath (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- See Talk:AC/DC and Talk:AC/DC/Archive 1 they lead to the talk page of talk:AC. So AFAICT if the article AC and its talk pages were moved it would impact on the talk page Talk:AC/DC and all other subsidiary pages. -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Slashes break Wikiblame, nothing that breaks Wikiblame should be allowed! Please. :-) Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- See Talk:AC/DC and Talk:AC/DC/Archive 1 they lead to the talk page of talk:AC. So AFAICT if the article AC and its talk pages were moved it would impact on the talk page Talk:AC/DC and all other subsidiary pages. -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see the problem PBS has pointed out. I think the reason it's not an issue on Good cop/bad cop is that there is no Talk:Good cop, so the software doesn't treat Talk:Good cop/bad cop as a subpage of anything. I have filed bugzilla:19032 to see if the developers can develop a hack to get around this issue.--Aervanath (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Indefinite articles within titles
What's the preferred way of dealing with this? Currently there's a debate at the Talk:Gay icon page over naming of gay icon-related articles. At present, we have two ways of naming these articles (eg: Madonna as gay icon and Judy Garland as a gay icon), and no one seems to be able to agree or state definitively which should be preferred and why. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I definitely prefer the form without "a". Maybe it's just my taste, but it seems we shouldn't be using unnecessary articles in titles.--Kotniski (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since the article is about Madonna as a gay icon, the title should clearly be "Madonna as a gay icon". --Zundark (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with Zundark, but is there any particular rule about this? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- That syllogism doesn't hold - the articles about dogs and the Baltic Sea are not called Dogs or the Baltic Sea. --Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- the "gay icon" part is a nominal predicate. In English, these have to be supported by the indefinite article
- He is a teacher.
- She is an idiot.
- It is impossbile to leave out the indefinite article in this construction unless you are using telegraphic style. In other languages, this is different for some subtypes of nominal predicates, eg German "Er ist Lehrer" (He is teacher), where the article does not show up. The question boils down to whether we want to use telegraphic style in headers or not. There are arguments for both positions. For instance, we leave out the definite article "the" per WP:MOS. It is = = early years = = not = = the early years = =. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- the "gay icon" part is a nominal predicate. In English, these have to be supported by the indefinite article
- But "early years" is a little bit different, plus it's a sub-heading. To me, "X as gay icon" sounds like a newspaper ("X reflects on status as gay icon") rather than an encyclopedia, especially an online one where we don't have to worry about conserving ink and paper. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- as I said, the question is whether wp should adopt "newspaper style". For some reason, this is done with subheadings. Those reasons could apply to the title as well, or not Jasy jatere (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- But "early years" is a little bit different, plus it's a sub-heading. To me, "X as gay icon" sounds like a newspaper ("X reflects on status as gay icon") rather than an encyclopedia, especially an online one where we don't have to worry about conserving ink and paper. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Ducati
Currently Ducati redirects to Ducati Motor Holding. Ducati is by far more in compliance with easily most recognized name and use the most common name than is Ducati Motor Holding, and I see nothing at WP:NCCORP that indicates WP:NC policy should be overridden here. The current name seems like an obvious case of unnecessary precision to me. Since Ducati already redirects to the article, there is no ambiguity issue.
As this is potentially controversial, I'm inclined to make a formal WP:RM request, but thought I would do a quick sanity check her in case I'm missing something with respect to company names. Am I? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be fairly sane here, as far as I can tell. For comparison, see IBM. which is far more widely used than International Business Machines Corporation.--Aervanath (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Style considered harmful in article names
It is English style to name things simply. This reads great (which was Strunk or White's original idea), but I fear often leads to articles with "interesting" titles but are intrinsically pov. Let me take cases that may seem amusing: "French kissing" implies something the French do or know or originate. There is a built-in implication that the French are better at, well something, anyway. I agree that it is simple and interesting.
Another example is "Spanish flu" or "Asian flu." While there may have been health vectors from those places, history has often named diseases after countries or places they didn't like or were even enemies (e.g "German" measles, "French pox").
My point in all this is that there are simple, one word (maybe two or so) subjects that can only be named one way: France, arithmetic, Bill Clinton, etc.
There are larger classes that get us into trouble. I propose inserting the general topic first, the specific target second. So in my joke example above (I'm not really seriously considering doing this, just for example only), the title would be "Kissing by French people", "Flu vectored from Asia". We have had many articles, which I don't want to list here to avoid spilling over boundaries, that would have been easily solved by using these guidelines for titles. These also, BTW, imply the possibility of other articles which the original titles didn't do. Do Swedes kiss? Did a flu bug ever originate in the US? (written before reading subsection above on swine flu BTW).
Unstylistic, but npov.Student7 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would oppose such a change. (KISS principle) --PBS (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would oppose such a change because it would violate naming policy (use the most easily recognized name and use the most common name) in each instance. In most cases it would also amount to unnecessary precision. Naming policy evolved from conventions and guidelines that were developed for good (usually self-explanatory) reasons. I see no justification to throw all that out. I do not see the "trouble" you think we currently get into. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- While we should be concerned with having a neutral point of view, calling something by the name it is most commonly known by and referred to by the majority of English speakers is about as neutral as you're going to get, so I'm afraid I see no need for this change.--Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those two cases you references are currently located at O.J. Simpson murder case and Lewinsky scandal, which seem perfectly neutral titles. Also, re-reading your original post above, this seems like a purely hypothetical issue. Are there any cases of articles which actually violate NPOV because they comply with the naming conventions, or is this just an intellectual exercise?--Aervanath (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Strengthen COMMONNAME
Currently the text of COMMONNAME reads (emphasis added):
Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.
I object to the bolded portion because it essentially guts the provision; anyone who writes up another naming convention can override it. I propose a change to the following wording (emphasis indicates added portion):
Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indicationTitle an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). If it is not obvious what the most common name is, then other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions should be consulted to determine the best name for the article. The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.
I believe this would bring it more in line with the injunction to use the name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and reflect the principle that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." The current wording gives far more leeway to specialists than it does to the general audience, and should be changed to remedy this. I am open to other suggestions on wording that would convey the same general intention. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to this, as written, although perhaps too much credence is presently given to WikiProject conventions. The royalty naming convention has reduced some edit wars, and the place naming convention was reducing edit wars until [an editor] started acting as if the US place naming convention was a nullity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redacted, per request. Will Beback talk 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not derogatory, but the name of the editor isn't relevant to this discussion unless he participates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redacted, per request. Will Beback talk 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not derogatory? Did you mean that comment to be complementary? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are three basic views about this issue.
- Model 1. The first is the model in which WP:NC serves as a default (what the rules are if no more specific rules apply), and that more specific naming conventions can override and contradict what the WP:NC default rules say.
- Model 2. The second view is the model in which WP:NC defines the fundamental naming rules, and that the more specific rules only apply when the fundamental rules don't provide sufficient guidance, in particular whenever "it is not obvious what the most common name is", or to provide guidance for how exactly to disambiguate when disambiguation is required and only when disambiguation is required.
- Chaos. The third view is that we use both models, sometimes following the first, sometimes following the second, mostly depending on how the "consensus" addressing a given naming issue happens to be leaning at some given time.
- In a sense, the third view is correct, because that's we have today, but the result is an endless source of dispute about naming because of the conflicting models.
- This proposal to strengthen COMMONNAME goes a long way towards adopting Model 2.
- It should be noted that there would be probably be very little change to royalty names if this change (or the full adoption of model 2) was put into effect. This is because most members of royalty do not have a clear "most commonly used" or "most recognizable" name, and so even with Model 2, the more specific royalty name guideline would provide the same guidance it does today.
- It should also be noted that this is true about many other categories as well, such as plants. For example, the vast, vast majority of plants do not have well-known commonly used names, and, so, even with Model 2, the plant-specific WP:NC (flora) guidelines would specify how to name them. Only with respect to well-known commonly used plant names would their names be determined by the fundamental WP:NC rules. In the case of areas well thought-out guidelines like TV episode names there would be absolutely no change, since they wisely already "disambiguate only when necessary".
- While both models lead to some inconsistencies, there are much fewer with Model 2, at least with respect to well-known topics. In both models each area has its own guidelines about naming within a given area, and nothing says they have to be consistent with each other, but at least in Model 2 all well-known "primary topic" uses of each name are named consistently per the main WP:NC guidelines. Only names that require disambiguation due to relative obscurity (because they are not primary, or because they are so obscure that there is no obvious name per fundamental WP:NC rules) are named per the more specific naming guidelines. Model 1 does provide intra-consistency of naming within a given area, but little or no inter-consistency among names in disparate areas.
- So, in the name of reducing confusion, conflict, dispute and inter-inconsistency with respect to naming articles in Wikipedia, I support this proposal to strengthen COMMONNAME. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the interest of reducing confusion, I suggest we should more clearly adopt model 1. The history of the confusion created when specialized guidelines were ignored in favor of WP:COMMONNAME make it clear that merely strengthening it would cause added confusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's not incorrectly attribute the confusion created by the current chaos to Model 2. The chaos confusion/contradiction exists to this day, and more clearly adopting model 1 would not help. Cities in most countries, per their specific guidelines, are disambiguated only when necessary, while in the U.S. all cities except those on the AP list are disambiguated whether they need to be or not. Model 1 does nothing to address this confusion/contradiction; in fact it encourages it.
- With respect to U.S. cities, the only reason the confusion/contradiction exists is because a majority insisted on make U.S. city names an exception to WP:NC. Contrast this with WP:NC-TV, for example, which states: "when disambiguation is required, use (TV series)", and add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name. In other words, disambiguate only when necessary. Simple. No confusion. No contradiction. If every specific naming guideline said this, there would be no confusion or contradiction at all.
- Model 1 guarantees confusion and contradiction, like the inexplicable differences between articles within WP:NC (flora) (assume dabbing required and use the practically-guaranteed-to-be-unique but obscure Latin name) and those within WP:NC (fauna) (considerable priority given to most commonly used/recognizable name). By adopting Model 2 we would eliminate this confusion and contradiction. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's obvious that I support Model 2. I also thank Born2cycle for bringing up the crux of the issue first; if we can't decide on what the underlying principles are, then putting forth a wording proposal is somewhat premature. Any wording which promotes Model 2 over Model 1 is one that I could support.--Aervanath (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
support model 2 per Kotniski Jasy jatere (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. This policy should reflect what people actually do, not what we want them to do. Out there in the mainspace, people take into account a range of considerations, including commonness, consistency across articles, accuracy, neutrality, standardisation within a field, etc.
Ornithologists have standardised the vernacular names of birds, and WP:BIRDS has long ago decided to follow this real-world convention; who are we to tell them they are wrong?
Who wants to go move Metallica (album) to The Black Album (Metallica)?; you'll have to if the title Metallica chose for their album is no longer to be given any weight at all.
Who wants to go tell the physicists to move gravitation to "gravity" because that's the term people use, and the fact that it would be wrong is irrelevant?
Hesperian 00:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let us not conflate the name of an article about a topic with the full/correct/official/precise/legal name of the topic.
There is no right and wrong in article naming. Often they are the same, but often they are not, and when they are not, that is not necessarily wrong. In many cases the most commonly used name to refer to a given topic differs from the full/correct/official/precise/legal name, and the convention in Wikipedia to deal with that is to use the former as the title of the article, disambiguated if and only if necessary (and this is where more specialized guidelines are of great assistance), and to clearly specify the latter in bold in the opening sentence of the article. In those cases where there is no clear most commonly used name this is not an issue because there is no difference, and the more specialized guidelines can provide guidance if there is more than one to choose from.
So, most bird names are probably fine as they are. Bluejay (rather than Cyanocitta cristata) is consistent with this. But yeah, that Metallica album should probably be moved.
And even per m-w.com 1 2 gravitation and gravity are synonyms, and so we should just go with whichever is most commonly used among authoritative sources. What's "wrong" with that? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let us not conflate the name of an article about a topic with the full/correct/official/precise/legal name of the topic.
- Oppose per Hesperian. Do we have to go through all this again? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose because this will strip away the protection of years of considered debate and consensus determination at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Armenian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Burmese), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy), Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Naming Conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (manuscript names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian, Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Style guide and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties and lead to a quagmire of ambiguity and uncertainty. Melburnian (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Model 2, for all the reasons given. Support Model 1, an attractive alternative to Chaos.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose strengthening. I support model 2 above. There needs to be negotiation with specialist areas to ensure there is no ambiguity when common names are used. The two can complement each other rather well if this is taken into account. i.e some simple/common names are good as long as they are not ambiguous and also to have some conformity with other entities in a given area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I support the change that Aervanath is proposing as the current wording is confusing (as shown by some of the comments in this section). Most of the advise on the guidelines became redundant about a year ago when we added to this policy page that reliable sources should be used. Policy supersedes guideline advise. This is the naming conventions policy page, all the rest are guidelines to the naming conventions. So common names should be used unless there is another more detailed convention on this page that contradicts that. (I proposed about a year ago that this page be renamed so that there was less confusion over the difference between policy and the guidelines to the policy -- perhaps we should have another request). --PBS (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for reasons explained by Hesperian. • Rabo³ • 12:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Naming conventions exist for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion. Will Beback talk 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Naming policy exists for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion. I don't think it's clear at all that what many of the specific naming guidelines say is said for good reasons. A lot of them appear to have been formed by small groups of biased specialists focused on their particular area, with little or no regard to the goal of naming consistency throughout Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm happy to see this resolved in a way that supports common sense. That means if there is a common name use it, don't use a scientific or obscure name when an English common name is available. Also, understand that since for many articles that share a common name, disambiguation is the first choice for the main name space when primary usage is not clearly established. What we have today is chaos! I have said over the years, that this policy is part of our style sheet and as such it should produce predictable results. As a side effect, it should reduce conflict and extended discussions of article names. It should also reduce editor confusion. My gut says that either model 1 or 2 could work. That means we may only need to tweak the current wording. I'm just not sure what that change is or how easy it would be to reach a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Common sense suggests that works best for operas is not what might work best for plants, and that the best common sense solution for Kosovo related articles many not work so well for companies. The limitations of a single top down solution is what has lead to the plethora of naming conventions listed by Melburnian. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is certainly true that what works well in one area might not work well in another area. However, as Wikipedians, we all follow certain fundamental policies; WP:Verifiablity, WP:Neutrality, etc. Those fundamental policies apply EVERYWHERE. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that there are OTHER common rules which can apply on a broad scope. In my view, COMMONNAME is one of them. I am not an expert in any of the various fields that have their own naming conventions, and our readers aren't either. That's the whole point. We should be optimizing this for the readers of our articles, not the specialists. While it is tempting to say that "opera editors know best about opera" and "plant editors know about plants", and therefore we should defer to them, that's the opposite to what we should be doing. We should be optimizing this for people who don't know anything about any subject, and are looking to learn. That means putting articles in the place where most people are likely to look.--Aervanath (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. Also, no one is advocating a single top down solution. Just some consistent principles that should apply consistently everywhere - nuances still have to be handled case-by-case. But naming should be consistent at some fundamental level. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is certainly true that what works well in one area might not work well in another area. However, as Wikipedians, we all follow certain fundamental policies; WP:Verifiablity, WP:Neutrality, etc. Those fundamental policies apply EVERYWHERE. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that there are OTHER common rules which can apply on a broad scope. In my view, COMMONNAME is one of them. I am not an expert in any of the various fields that have their own naming conventions, and our readers aren't either. That's the whole point. We should be optimizing this for the readers of our articles, not the specialists. While it is tempting to say that "opera editors know best about opera" and "plant editors know about plants", and therefore we should defer to them, that's the opposite to what we should be doing. We should be optimizing this for people who don't know anything about any subject, and are looking to learn. That means putting articles in the place where most people are likely to look.--Aervanath (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes, I agree with that, but not at the expense of accuracy. Plants is a case in point where common names often very wildly, are multiple or nonexistent, same with most invertebrates and fish. Birds are virtually the only creatures with official common names. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think "plants is a case" is not correct. Plants is not a case - plants is a collection of countless cases, and for many, most or perhaps even the vast majority of those cases it may be true that "common names often vary wildly, are multiple or nonexistent". And for each one of those cases where that's true, then, as well as any time disambiguation is required, the plant-specific guideline should kick in, so to speak. But for all those cases where there is a clear single easily recognized most commonly used unambiguous name for the plant topic in question, then that should be the title. But thinking of "plants" (or any group of articles) as a whole being a separate case en masse is problematic from the outset. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes, I agree with that, but not at the expense of accuracy. Plants is a case in point where common names often very wildly, are multiple or nonexistent, same with most invertebrates and fish. Birds are virtually the only creatures with official common names. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Common sense suggests that works best for operas is not what might work best for plants, and that the best common sense solution for Kosovo related articles many not work so well for companies. The limitations of a single top down solution is what has lead to the plethora of naming conventions listed by Melburnian. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)