This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have an editor going through all the abbey articles changing Abbey of St. Loup, etc to this format, sometimes, as here, with results that betray complete unfamiliarity with the subject. An Americanism was intended, I suppose. We do have many bullies at Wikipedia.-- Wetman ( talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1) The issue is exactly the same as that of "Cathedral of Foo" versus "Foo Cathedral", and the google results are non-dispositive for exactly the same reasons (dominant among which is that "abbey of Saint-X" is a description, not a name). (Out of interest, what comes up the most often is "Saint-Loup Abbey", which presumably no-one would think a good option, as AFAIK it is not in a village called Saint-Loup).
2) Names of foreign religious houses in English are translations, of which, with VERY FEW exceptions, there IS no standard version (so it is a bit silly to start talking about solecisms). In the absence of a standard, best practice must be to use the most natural and economic English language form, which is "X Abbey", if there is only one in a single place, or, if there is more than one, "St. Y's Abbey, X". There is simply NO justification for anything more elaborate.
I suspect the preference for the longer "Abbey of St. Y, X" version is generally based on nothing better than (1) the usage of the Catholic Encyclopedia (of 1907-14, which puts it in perspective) or (2) an O Level knowledge of the French Abbaye de Saint-Y, X. I can only repeat that there is really no justification for transferring that totally literally into English.
3) Consistency actually IS a good thing in a reference work, especially when there is no good reason for not having it.
4) As to the other points above, well, if we don't want to sound like "How Very Dare You?", we should not edit as if tired and emotional. To change a poor title is not "bullying"; nor, on a small article with only a few links, does it require prior consultation. I would have hoped, in the light of my track record, that there was no need to mention WP:AGF and WP:NPA - but clearly it IS necessary - I will not hold my breath for an apology. HeartofaDog ( talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have an editor going through all the abbey articles changing Abbey of St. Loup, etc to this format, sometimes, as here, with results that betray complete unfamiliarity with the subject. An Americanism was intended, I suppose. We do have many bullies at Wikipedia.-- Wetman ( talk) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1) The issue is exactly the same as that of "Cathedral of Foo" versus "Foo Cathedral", and the google results are non-dispositive for exactly the same reasons (dominant among which is that "abbey of Saint-X" is a description, not a name). (Out of interest, what comes up the most often is "Saint-Loup Abbey", which presumably no-one would think a good option, as AFAIK it is not in a village called Saint-Loup).
2) Names of foreign religious houses in English are translations, of which, with VERY FEW exceptions, there IS no standard version (so it is a bit silly to start talking about solecisms). In the absence of a standard, best practice must be to use the most natural and economic English language form, which is "X Abbey", if there is only one in a single place, or, if there is more than one, "St. Y's Abbey, X". There is simply NO justification for anything more elaborate.
I suspect the preference for the longer "Abbey of St. Y, X" version is generally based on nothing better than (1) the usage of the Catholic Encyclopedia (of 1907-14, which puts it in perspective) or (2) an O Level knowledge of the French Abbaye de Saint-Y, X. I can only repeat that there is really no justification for transferring that totally literally into English.
3) Consistency actually IS a good thing in a reference work, especially when there is no good reason for not having it.
4) As to the other points above, well, if we don't want to sound like "How Very Dare You?", we should not edit as if tired and emotional. To change a poor title is not "bullying"; nor, on a small article with only a few links, does it require prior consultation. I would have hoped, in the light of my track record, that there was no need to mention WP:AGF and WP:NPA - but clearly it IS necessary - I will not hold my breath for an apology. HeartofaDog ( talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)