→Use of obscure and/or not strictly COMMONNAME examples of COMMONNAME: Screw it. Never mind. I'm already sick of this discussion -- not only is trying to amend the wording of policy pages to accurately reflect common (best) practice one of the most hellish experiences a Wikipedian can have, but apparently even trying to PRESERVE a status quo policy wording is just as bad. |
|||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
:I'm not seeing many arguments in your reasoning frankly. Yes, I certainly think [[Diocletian]] is a [[WP:COMMONNAME]], & you are entirely misreading the policy if you think only names likely to turn up in domestic conversation count as "common". I'd guess my sibling count would be 5+/7 - I may do an e-poll to test. That's recognising him as a Roman emperor, not knowing anything much about him. So why do your true statements about JK Rowling mean she should be removed as an example? I'm confused, but let's see what others think. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
:I'm not seeing many arguments in your reasoning frankly. Yes, I certainly think [[Diocletian]] is a [[WP:COMMONNAME]], & you are entirely misreading the policy if you think only names likely to turn up in domestic conversation count as "common". I'd guess my sibling count would be 5+/7 - I may do an e-poll to test. That's recognising him as a Roman emperor, not knowing anything much about him. So why do your true statements about JK Rowling mean she should be removed as an example? I'm confused, but let's see what others think. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
::I agree with Johnbod. Common name doesn't mean that everyone refers to the article subject by that name. Rather, that the majority of reliable sources use that name. For niche topics, those sources may be from a niche area and few outside the field may have heard of either the common or the actual name. In this respect, Diocletian is actually an excellent example for inclusion. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
::I agree with Johnbod. Common name doesn't mean that everyone refers to the article subject by that name. Rather, that the majority of reliable sources use that name. For niche topics, those sources may be from a niche area and few outside the field may have heard of either the common or the actual name. In this respect, Diocletian is actually an excellent example for inclusion. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ec}}I think my interpretation of the policy is the more widely accepted one among Wikipedians, and the list of examples that has survived for years (as long as I can remember) supports this. The list [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_titles&oldid=615877345#Use_commonly_recognizable_names used to be longer], and included only modern Euro-American political and pop culture figures. I wouldn't trust an e-poll of your family, since anyone can look the name up and immediately find out that he was a Roman emperor, which is why I specifically referred to asking them in person at the dinner table. Diocletian's name didn't appear in the Irish primary of secondary school history textbooks, if I recall (they pushed the whole "the Romans persecuted Christians for 300 years" narrative -- teaching the name of Diocletian would have conflicted with that), and I see no reason to believe that the "average" reader from the UK, the US, Canada, Australia or anywhere else would be any different. |
|||
:::{{tq|''I agree with Johnbod. Common name doesn't mean that everyone refers to the article subject by that name.''}} Umm ... what? Can you please not talk past me? If you don't understand something I write, I can break it down in different words, but you are clearly not responding to anything I actually wrote. |
|||
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:32, 16 March 2020
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61 |
Archives by topic: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
WP:CONCISE
Full disclosure: I came to this page again from a discussion at Talk:May 1968 events in France. This edit by me is not related to any of the arguments from that discussion, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Naming of governments/cabinets
There is currently no explicit naming convention for government/cabinet articles. This has led to a lot of inconsistency and inevitably disputes. There are three main inconsistencies - capitalisation, numbering format and syntax.
- Capitalisation - Some editors have taken the view that governments/cabinets aren't proper names and have not capitalised (other than where required by WP:NCCAPS) (Fourth Merkel cabinet, Second Johnson ministry, Second Philippe government). Others have taken the view that they are proper names and capitalised the full title (Second Morrison Ministry, Conte II Cabinet, 13th Government of Slovenia).
- Numbering format - Variations include full ordinal number (Second Modi ministry), abbreviated ordinal number (29th Canadian Ministry) or Roman numbering (Sánchez II Government).
- Syntax - There are several combinations including
- [Ordinal number] [Head of government] [government/cabinet/ministry] (Fourth Merkel cabinet);
- [Ordinal number] [government/cabinet/ministry] of [Head of government] (Second cabinet of Geir Haarde); and
- [Head of government] [ordinal number] [government/cabinet/ministry] (Michel II Government).
We really need an explicit naming convention to avoid such inconsistency.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks to Obi2canibe for opening this discussion. Also worth nothing is that there is an additional variation such as Government of the 31st Dáil ([Government/Cabinet/Ministry] of the [ordinal number] [legislature]). I basically agree with everything; we need a naming convention or at least some common rules or guides so as to how name these, because a lot of inconsistency exists and it only keeps growing with each new government/cabinet/ministry being formed around the world. Commenting on each of the problems:
- Capitalization: Interpretation of already existing WP guidelines, conventions and manuals of style proves problematic because of potential conflict between several of them, leading to several different stylings depending on the interpretation. You have WP:NCCAPS, which would generally discourage capitalization; however, the contrary would be true should we try to subsidiarily apply WP:NCGAL (guidelines for government departments, agencies, and officials), WP:COMMONNAME (because, at least in some of these examples, sources do use capitalization) and/or the NCCAPS-bit where it is established that expressions borrowed from other languages without having been adopted as loan words in English are to retain the native language's capitalization. This aside of the issue on whether these should be treated as proper names or not, which only aggravates it further.
- Numbering format: MOS:NUM does not address this issue at all. As of currently, it would allow for any numbering style to be used: either fully spelled out ordinals, numbers or Roman numerals (which are only discouraged for dates, centuries and millenia).
- Syntax: I guess that under WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, the [ordinal number] [government/cabinet/ministry] of [Head of government]-style format would be discouraged in favour of the shorter [Ordinal number] [Head of government] [government/cabinet/ministry] or [Head of government] [ordinal number] [government/cabinet/ministry], but again no particularly useful clue that brings any consistency or order here.
- It would be interesting to see some input from the community on this issue. Impru20talk 18:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to Obi2canibe for their post. I am not a big expert of Wikipedia policies with respect to other editors, but I also think a generalized guideline can and should be achieved for articles of this type.
- About capitalization, I made my point in the discussion in the Conte II cabinet talk page. I think that, while the name "Government [or Cabinet] of Italy" is indeed the proper noun of an institution, the name "Conte II cabinet" or "second Conte cabinet" is not a proper name, therefore per WP:NCCAPS we should avoid its unnecessary capitalization (and do so also elsewhere in the text on this encyclopedia wherever the cabinet is mentioned).
- About the numbering format I have no strong preference. Probably a good compromise could be to use the format that is more common or that is official in the country of which the article is about. Otherwise we should probably stick to the English format (i.e. either "second" or "2nd", but not "II").
- About the syntax I think that WP:CONCISE is not really the main guidance to follow, since in none of the cases the title would be excessively or unnecessarily long. So I would go for the syntax that is most correct and natural in the English language.
- Some more comments:
Probably this should be notified/discussed elsewhere to get more input?
I don't think so. This page should be the most visible one concerning decisions about articles titles, so I don't see where else we could move this discussion. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)- As Ritchie92 has stated, I'm not sure where else we can publicise this discussion to get more input.
- My own preference is first example I gave, Fourth Merkel cabinet, simply because currently this format has a slight edge over other formats in terms of use. It is by no means an absolute majority, more like plurality. Ritchie92 makes a good point regarding WP:CONCISE in that this format isn't excessively long.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea would be to reopen this discussion as an WP:RFC with
{{rfc|style|pol}}
at the top. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)- I would prefer the "Sánchez I Government"/"Conte II Cabinet" style, for the simple reason that this is the style used across Wikipedia when shortening cabinets/governments, as well as being the most easily identifiable one at a cross-country level (example: Template:EU governments). An RfC could be interesting, but what should the questions asked be? Impru20talk 15:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- An RfC does not need to contain a question. It could also be a copy of the first post in this thread, IMHO. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Might be worthwhile trying Rfc. Not sure if a new discussion needs to be started.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92 and Obi2canibe: no, and RfC doesn't need a question, but experience has shown that it's mostly RfCs with clearly defined options that gain traction. This RfC has attained zero comments. I suggest rewriting the top statement and moving all this discussion under a separate Discussion heading. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Might be worthwhile trying Rfc. Not sure if a new discussion needs to be started.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- An RfC does not need to contain a question. It could also be a copy of the first post in this thread, IMHO. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would prefer the "Sánchez I Government"/"Conte II Cabinet" style, for the simple reason that this is the style used across Wikipedia when shortening cabinets/governments, as well as being the most easily identifiable one at a cross-country level (example: Template:EU governments). An RfC could be interesting, but what should the questions asked be? Impru20talk 15:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea would be to reopen this discussion as an WP:RFC with
names
Based on precedent and experience, parenthetical disambiguators clearly and succinctly tell readers which whatever they're looking at/for. I know that John Radcliffe (died 1568) is about a man named John Radcliffe who died in 1568; 3rd Marine Brigade (Iran) is about an Iranian military unit; Lupus (constellation) is about a formation of stars collectively named Lupus; and Bra (song) is about a song named "Bra".
Similarly, I expect Delfino (name) to be an encyclopedic article about the name (sur or given): its meaning, history, etc. Instead, it's a list of people with the given or surname "Delfino"; content I would expect to find at list of people named Delfino. Is there an MOS or guideline to blame for this? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
20th Century Fox / 20th Century Studios is testing NAMECHANGES
At Talk:20th_Century_Fox#Requested_move_17_January_2020 NAMECHANGES is being tested/questioned. Should 20th Century Fox remain and 20th Century Studios be a new article, or should 20th Century Fox be moved to 20th Century Studios? Weigh in at the RM. --В²C ☎ 21:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Are you proposing a review and update of WP:Article titles#Name changes? Or are you WP:Canvassing? Calling in help when it is not clear which way the discussion is falling, with you heavily involved? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
(per WP:Canvassing). That's exactly my purpose. I'm curious how others here might weigh in on this unique situation. Yes, I'm heavily involved, but I'm not 100% confident in my position. My gut might be misleading me. But I'm not sure how much weight to give to NAMECHANGES for reasons I explained there. Anyway, I'm sure the only effect of posting this here, if any, is a few more, perhaps including you, will weigh in. How they will weigh in... I have no idea. --В²C ☎ 22:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Having now reviewed WP:Article titles#Name changes aka WP:NAMECHANGES, I don't see it as threatened in any way by this RM. The discussion is well focused from the start on post-namechange sources, which is what the policy section says to look at with greater weighting. I read the second paragraph as superfluous, serving only to remind of the basics of reliable sources. It is actually a brief paraphrasing of what is already written above in WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. I would cut this second paragraph in the name of concision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: what on earth are you on about? Threatened? Policy pages aren't the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom, which we must defend with armed guards against possible attack from enemy fighters invoking rogue LOCALCONSENSUS. They are living, breathing, entities, which are open to amendment if people later decide they don't fit the ideal way we should be operating. And B2C is raising a genuine question about the relative weighting of highly significant historic names versus new renamed entities in a diminished takeover version of the company. Which came up several times in the Fox RM and is exactly the sort of thing we debate here. I don't think the question was an attempt to influence the RM itself (which is now closed in any case and I eventually supported based on the present policy, even though I had misgivings). Your immediate leap to assuming bad faith is not what I would expect from an experienced editor such as yourself. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I read B2C’s request with bad faith, that was revealed to me by his answer, and I apologise for that. Bh was of explanation, I am always suspicious of a post at a WT page that calls watchers of that page to a discussion elsewhere. Eg “hey, there’s a LOCALCONSENSUS of wrong editors beating me on the numbers, please come and help”. This sort of behaviour I have seen happen at WT:AT, WT:DAB, and MOS talk pages. Also seen on Usercat discussions. Maybe it’s a thing of the distant past and I should relax.
- In my defence, “Weigh in at the RM” is very bad looking. If there is an actual issue in mainspace that raises a policy question, it should be discussed on the policy talk page.
- Policy and guideline pages overreach being defended by the policy and guideline authors, against the non WT editing mainspace distorts, you bet that happens. As if policy is the Crown Jewels, as if policy enforcement is a fight for the farm. Examples include “Star Trek i/Into Darkness” a few years ago, and WP:JOBTITLES still currently. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: thanks for the reply and apology, and actually I'll issue one to you too, as I missed the "weigh in on the RM" line.. I read this first thing in the morning when I woke up, and yes that does look a little like attempting to influence the result. Anyway, let's move on from that... I'm not sure if there's anything specific to discuss here - like I said above, it seems counterintuitive to be moving articles away from a title such as 20th Century Fox, an iconic name that pushed out mainstream movies for decades and which in many ways was not the same entity as the current Disney-owned studio, even if the legal corporation and some of the infrastructure remain the same. It's a difficult one to form a judgement on, because it also doesn't make sense to have details of a current extant studio situated at a name it no longer uses.
- I don't really agree with your point about defending policy like the farm. Certainly we should use policy as a defence against driveby !votes in discussion by people who don't understand how our existing policies work, and haven't taken the time to understand them. And ditto where a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS emerges somewhere that's totally at odds with sitewide convention. But equally, per WP:5P5 and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, the policies are not set in stone and if they prove to be not fit for purpose for genuine reasons and there's a strong consensus for change at an RFC, then it's right to change them not just to defend them against all attacks just because they are The Policies™. This talk page is the correct place for testing the waters for such a change, before submitting it to formal RFC. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think I was unclear and we are actually in agreement? I have always been very quick to get agitated when I think I see a small group defending policy against specific cases with arguments citing the history of the wording of policy as opposed for the reasons for the policy. I reacted to a perceived attempt to get NAMESCHANGES authors to defend NAMECHANGES against an emerging article talk page consensus, but which on examination turned out to be much more complicated. NB. On 20th Century Fox, I read all the comments, including yours, and several references before !voting against my initial gut inclination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- My original post was poorly worded in (at least) two ways. By "testing" NAMECHANGES I meant the situation was special in a way that NAMECHANGES didn't really address, for reasons I won't repeat here. By "weigh in" I just meant "participate". I did not mean to imply tipping the scales or something. After all the term comes from the required process of participants at certain events. --В²C ☎ 01:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think I was unclear and we are actually in agreement? I have always been very quick to get agitated when I think I see a small group defending policy against specific cases with arguments citing the history of the wording of policy as opposed for the reasons for the policy. I reacted to a perceived attempt to get NAMESCHANGES authors to defend NAMECHANGES against an emerging article talk page consensus, but which on examination turned out to be much more complicated. NB. On 20th Century Fox, I read all the comments, including yours, and several references before !voting against my initial gut inclination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: what on earth are you on about? Threatened? Policy pages aren't the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom, which we must defend with armed guards against possible attack from enemy fighters invoking rogue LOCALCONSENSUS. They are living, breathing, entities, which are open to amendment if people later decide they don't fit the ideal way we should be operating. And B2C is raising a genuine question about the relative weighting of highly significant historic names versus new renamed entities in a diminished takeover version of the company. Which came up several times in the Fox RM and is exactly the sort of thing we debate here. I don't think the question was an attempt to influence the RM itself (which is now closed in any case and I eventually supported based on the present policy, even though I had misgivings). Your immediate leap to assuming bad faith is not what I would expect from an experienced editor such as yourself. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, the closer found consensus and so now we don't have an article about the entity known as 20th Century Fox for the better part of a century. Instead, it redirects to a new entity evolved from the previous entity owned by Disney called 20th Century Studios. Not really a title issue at this point, but not sure where to address this. Suggestions? --В²C ☎ 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- The info box’s “ Formerly 20th Century Fox (1935–2020)” is something. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Changed the name change policy
Changed the name change policy from common sense to actual attestation by two reliable sources using exact same name, to make Wikipedia make more sense when it would be read in future. Comments wanted. Erkin Alp Güney 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted – that's not how it is done, compare WP:SPNC:
- Cat Stevens not changed, while considerably more than two reliable sources regarding a name change exits;
- Jorge Bergoglio changed, with less than two reliable sources in existence
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am intending to change to self-published name change policy to require attestation by at least two additional external sources too. Erkin Alp Güney 17:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Again, not how it is done. And (in view of Peter coxhead's comment below): the current wording of both the WP:SPNC guideline and the WP:NAMECHANGES policy was the result of substantial consensus-seeking proceedings *prior* to policy/guideline updates, so, consensus needs to be found first for any substantial desired change. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Further, you seem engaged in a current related name change discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Proposed move to SARS 2 outbreak – not a good idea to try a guideline/policy change that would better support your current view in an open discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- This change would make my proposed name change harder to pass. Erkin Alp Güney 18:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain the advantages that would result from the kind of update you are proposing to the guidance? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Making name change criteria objectively applicable. Erkin Alp Güney 19:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- WP:RMs usually give a fairly objective result: rules in policies and guidelines are derived from WP:RMs that resulted in a strong consensus (which is a quite "objective" result). We don't need rules that would be overruled by the next WP:RM: such rules would not be "objectively applicable" while too easily overruled by WP:RMs. The change you proposed would be such non-"objectively applicable" WP:RULECRUFT. So no, what you proposed is not "objectively applicable". --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Making name change criteria objectively applicable. Erkin Alp Güney 19:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain the advantages that would result from the kind of update you are proposing to the guidance? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- This change would make my proposed name change harder to pass. Erkin Alp Güney 18:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am intending to change to self-published name change policy to require attestation by at least two additional external sources too. Erkin Alp Güney 17:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, a significant change to a policy like this needs prior discussion and consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"gamer" or "video game player" as parenthetical disambiguation?
Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) § RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? Izno (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Use of obscure and/or not strictly COMMONNAME examples of COMMONNAME
- This is about this pair of edits. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod: The reason I didn't take it to talk first was because I assumed my restoring the status quo pending someone opening a talk page discussion would be uncontroversial.
Do you have any concrete arguments against my reasoning? Do you really think Diocletian is a "common" name? It's a name I've seen used in a lot of scholarly literature on the topic, but at the same time I'd say if I asked any of my four siblings or my parents over Christmas dinner if they had ever heard of him, I might get 1/6 saying they had, and that's only because my father is almost as big a history buff as I am. Similarly, while J.K. Rowling actually is a household name, we use that pen name as our article title for the same reason we use Fujiwara no Teika -- someone who is/was known professionally by a pseudonym (of sorts) is called by that pseudonym regardless of whether it is commonly known/used among our readers.
Moreover, the lead of the page says It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.
-- unless you can point to me where consensus was found that COMMONNAME applies to relatively obscure topics that don't have a "common" name but are conventionally called by a particular name in English-language reliable sources, the examples that were unilaterally added last April need to stay out.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing many arguments in your reasoning frankly. Yes, I certainly think Diocletian is a WP:COMMONNAME, & you are entirely misreading the policy if you think only names likely to turn up in domestic conversation count as "common". I'd guess my sibling count would be 5+/7 - I may do an e-poll to test. That's recognising him as a Roman emperor, not knowing anything much about him. So why do your true statements about JK Rowling mean she should be removed as an example? I'm confused, but let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Johnbod. Common name doesn't mean that everyone refers to the article subject by that name. Rather, that the majority of reliable sources use that name. For niche topics, those sources may be from a niche area and few outside the field may have heard of either the common or the actual name. In this respect, Diocletian is actually an excellent example for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)