This page in a nutshell: In some particular subject areas, systematic names are preferred for article names even where unambiguous common names exist. |
The nutshell summary belongs in the proposal, rather than the talk page, of course. But I thought it useful to have it here too for the moment. Andrewa ( talk) 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I might run this up the pole and see who salutes. It surprises me that there's nothing of this nature in perennial proposals, but I can't see it if there is. That's where this may well end.
In fact I can't even find anything similar in Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, but there's a lot there and I may well be overlooking it. Presumably there aren't many similar rejected proposals, or it would be listed in the perennial proposals page. If you can find any, please link to them below.
Or it may be that Wikipedia is ready for a policy shift on this. Either way, this is intended to bring some current related discussions together, see below.
There have been many other similar discussions recently. If you know of them, and particularly if you're currently involved in them, please provide links to them below, and consider linking here from those discussions if the you think the participants there would be interested in contributing here.
I'm starting this in my user space simply not to clutter the project namespace for the moment. Feel free to move it to the project namespace if you feel the time is right for that, or to make edits here until that happens (if indeed it does). Andrewa ( talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
PS If you do move it to the project namespace, I'd assume you would move the user page to the project namespace (Wikipedia:), this talk page to Wikipedia talk: (that's just a matter of ticking the appropriate box), and also please remove the bots sinebot deny template from the top of this page. TIA. Andrewa ( talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please add to this list. They can also be added to the proposal itself under the heading Under consideration.
From Talk:Union Flag where there have been many such discussions:
Please be aware that the Union flag is the flag on its own the Union jack is when the flag is flown from a royal navy steeplejack. The aticle title is wrong to be the Union jack it must remain the Union flag or else it is wrong.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This pretty much sums up the views of many there. Andrewa ( talk) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Related even if not perhaps quite the same issue.
User talk:Andrewa/systematic names
Are there areas where this policy is already being followed, but hasn't been documented in quite this way? I think there may be... perhaps in the areas of royalty, or other technical areas. Andrewa ( talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
How about this one... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Article title reads in part Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page and later Common names are to redirect to scientific names. That's a clear indication to me that at least some systematic names are preferred to the common names. Andrewa ( talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on Darwin's Origin of Species was renamed from The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species, see Talk:On the Origin of Species. Early discussion centred on what the original published title had been, which was later justified by appeal to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#When the title version "best known in English" can't be determined. Andrewa 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Sports_teams: In cases where there is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used.
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions. Andrewa ( talk) 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Surely this isn't the first time this has been raised? Andrewa ( talk) 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two cases I can think of where there are actual and approved guidelines for systematic article naming.
In short, good luck with this kettle of stinking fish; you'll need it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
To what extent should article names be based on English usage, and to what extent on appeal to some authority?
WP:NC establishes the basic principle for article naming as being what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. As a result we spend a lot of time discussing, case by case, what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, and often generate some considerable heat in discussion.
In particular subject areas, groups of enthusiasts (sometimes organised in a WikiProject but often not) manage from time to time to enforce a standard that departs from WP:NC, and is more systematic and/or authoritative. Some of these are documented in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (sixty-two pages at last count!) and most are not.
I think the tendency to appeal to authority rather than usage may be increasing as Wikipedia grows. If this is the case, then it may be a good time to establish a little more infrastructure for handling these conventions.
This may help to prevent instruction creep but I doubt it. It's more an attempt to manage it.
IMO the basic principle of WP:NC is very sound indeed. It's a post-modern approach that reflects the rejection of linguistic prescription, and is supported by similar movements in philosophy, mathematics, theology and even science that were a highlight of the 20th century and are ongoing. But perhaps it's not the whole story. Andrewa ( talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The proposal currently reads in part:
several criteria must normally be met... The topic area is nominated by the members of a related, active WikiProject....
Is this a good idea? It gives the WikiProjects involved an authority not originally intended to give them, or for that matter to anybody. Comments welcome. Andrewa ( talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing debate over weather postal address should be used such as One Canada Square or One Churchill Place or the "Common Name" such as HSBC Tower instead of 8 Canada square.
I say to avoid future renaming of buildings when a new tenant occupies the building and renames the building, the postal address should be used. Also there is no definition or quantifiability over what the "common name" is when multiple names could be classed as the "common name".-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
555 California Street looked interesting, but it turns out that the street address is the official name. However Bank of America Center (San Francisco) which redirects there has almost as many links. Andrewa ( talk) 10:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The official name of a building should never be used just because it is the official name. Naming rights to buildings are bought and sold, and often change when the major tenant of a building changes. If there is any doubt as to the widespread acceptance of a building's popular name, then the street address should be used instead. So Empire State Building because it's famous by that name but... and we then quote an example of an article named after the street address, rather than by its official name.
Once we come up with a proposed naming convention, we can then decide on the next step. Two questions for now:
Be warned, making new policies and guidelines is not for the fainthearted. Most proposals fail. Andrewa ( talk) 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Or, if you're really brave, you could try for something more sweeping, to cover your views on the correct naming of the article on the Union Flag/Union Jack as well, see above. Andrewa ( talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That is fine and I have already weighed into the the union flag debate. I have just a few tweaks replace "should never" with "must never", "often change" with "regularly change", insert "or common name" after "popular name", replace "street address" with "postal address", replace "should be used instead" with "needs to be used" also insert "long standing world famous names for buildings are an exception to this rule" quoting the Empire State and the Eiffel Tower.
So my edited draft reads as follows.
The official name of a building must never be used just because it is the official name. Naming rights to buildings are bought and sold, and regularly change when the major tenant of a building changes. If there is any doubt as to the widespread acceptance of a building's popular or common name, then the postal address needs to be used. Long standing world famous names for buildings are an exception to this rule; Empire State Building and Eiffel Tower are examples of this exception. The rule should be applied as follows 8 Canada Square instead of HSBC Tower and 30 St Mary Axe instead of The Gherkin.
The following caveat also needs to be inserted somewhere:
The examples of the exemption are non-UK skyscrapers as the UK currently does not have any skyscrapers that fulfill the exemption.
-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There still has not been an iron-cast definition of "common name" and I think until we get that "reasonable ambiguity" can always be argued as being created. Also what is to be used as a reliable source for the "official name" when some buildings haven't even been built and there are no tenants?-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Official names. Andrewa ( talk) 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: In some particular subject areas, systematic names are preferred for article names even where unambiguous common names exist. |
The nutshell summary belongs in the proposal, rather than the talk page, of course. But I thought it useful to have it here too for the moment. Andrewa ( talk) 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just thought I might run this up the pole and see who salutes. It surprises me that there's nothing of this nature in perennial proposals, but I can't see it if there is. That's where this may well end.
In fact I can't even find anything similar in Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, but there's a lot there and I may well be overlooking it. Presumably there aren't many similar rejected proposals, or it would be listed in the perennial proposals page. If you can find any, please link to them below.
Or it may be that Wikipedia is ready for a policy shift on this. Either way, this is intended to bring some current related discussions together, see below.
There have been many other similar discussions recently. If you know of them, and particularly if you're currently involved in them, please provide links to them below, and consider linking here from those discussions if the you think the participants there would be interested in contributing here.
I'm starting this in my user space simply not to clutter the project namespace for the moment. Feel free to move it to the project namespace if you feel the time is right for that, or to make edits here until that happens (if indeed it does). Andrewa ( talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
PS If you do move it to the project namespace, I'd assume you would move the user page to the project namespace (Wikipedia:), this talk page to Wikipedia talk: (that's just a matter of ticking the appropriate box), and also please remove the bots sinebot deny template from the top of this page. TIA. Andrewa ( talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please add to this list. They can also be added to the proposal itself under the heading Under consideration.
From Talk:Union Flag where there have been many such discussions:
Please be aware that the Union flag is the flag on its own the Union jack is when the flag is flown from a royal navy steeplejack. The aticle title is wrong to be the Union jack it must remain the Union flag or else it is wrong.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This pretty much sums up the views of many there. Andrewa ( talk) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Related even if not perhaps quite the same issue.
User talk:Andrewa/systematic names
Are there areas where this policy is already being followed, but hasn't been documented in quite this way? I think there may be... perhaps in the areas of royalty, or other technical areas. Andrewa ( talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
How about this one... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Article title reads in part Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page and later Common names are to redirect to scientific names. That's a clear indication to me that at least some systematic names are preferred to the common names. Andrewa ( talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on Darwin's Origin of Species was renamed from The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species, see Talk:On the Origin of Species. Early discussion centred on what the original published title had been, which was later justified by appeal to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#When the title version "best known in English" can't be determined. Andrewa 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Sports_teams: In cases where there is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used.
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions. Andrewa ( talk) 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Surely this isn't the first time this has been raised? Andrewa ( talk) 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two cases I can think of where there are actual and approved guidelines for systematic article naming.
In short, good luck with this kettle of stinking fish; you'll need it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
To what extent should article names be based on English usage, and to what extent on appeal to some authority?
WP:NC establishes the basic principle for article naming as being what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. As a result we spend a lot of time discussing, case by case, what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, and often generate some considerable heat in discussion.
In particular subject areas, groups of enthusiasts (sometimes organised in a WikiProject but often not) manage from time to time to enforce a standard that departs from WP:NC, and is more systematic and/or authoritative. Some of these are documented in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (sixty-two pages at last count!) and most are not.
I think the tendency to appeal to authority rather than usage may be increasing as Wikipedia grows. If this is the case, then it may be a good time to establish a little more infrastructure for handling these conventions.
This may help to prevent instruction creep but I doubt it. It's more an attempt to manage it.
IMO the basic principle of WP:NC is very sound indeed. It's a post-modern approach that reflects the rejection of linguistic prescription, and is supported by similar movements in philosophy, mathematics, theology and even science that were a highlight of the 20th century and are ongoing. But perhaps it's not the whole story. Andrewa ( talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The proposal currently reads in part:
several criteria must normally be met... The topic area is nominated by the members of a related, active WikiProject....
Is this a good idea? It gives the WikiProjects involved an authority not originally intended to give them, or for that matter to anybody. Comments welcome. Andrewa ( talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing debate over weather postal address should be used such as One Canada Square or One Churchill Place or the "Common Name" such as HSBC Tower instead of 8 Canada square.
I say to avoid future renaming of buildings when a new tenant occupies the building and renames the building, the postal address should be used. Also there is no definition or quantifiability over what the "common name" is when multiple names could be classed as the "common name".-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
555 California Street looked interesting, but it turns out that the street address is the official name. However Bank of America Center (San Francisco) which redirects there has almost as many links. Andrewa ( talk) 10:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The official name of a building should never be used just because it is the official name. Naming rights to buildings are bought and sold, and often change when the major tenant of a building changes. If there is any doubt as to the widespread acceptance of a building's popular name, then the street address should be used instead. So Empire State Building because it's famous by that name but... and we then quote an example of an article named after the street address, rather than by its official name.
Once we come up with a proposed naming convention, we can then decide on the next step. Two questions for now:
Be warned, making new policies and guidelines is not for the fainthearted. Most proposals fail. Andrewa ( talk) 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Or, if you're really brave, you could try for something more sweeping, to cover your views on the correct naming of the article on the Union Flag/Union Jack as well, see above. Andrewa ( talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That is fine and I have already weighed into the the union flag debate. I have just a few tweaks replace "should never" with "must never", "often change" with "regularly change", insert "or common name" after "popular name", replace "street address" with "postal address", replace "should be used instead" with "needs to be used" also insert "long standing world famous names for buildings are an exception to this rule" quoting the Empire State and the Eiffel Tower.
So my edited draft reads as follows.
The official name of a building must never be used just because it is the official name. Naming rights to buildings are bought and sold, and regularly change when the major tenant of a building changes. If there is any doubt as to the widespread acceptance of a building's popular or common name, then the postal address needs to be used. Long standing world famous names for buildings are an exception to this rule; Empire State Building and Eiffel Tower are examples of this exception. The rule should be applied as follows 8 Canada Square instead of HSBC Tower and 30 St Mary Axe instead of The Gherkin.
The following caveat also needs to be inserted somewhere:
The examples of the exemption are non-UK skyscrapers as the UK currently does not have any skyscrapers that fulfill the exemption.
-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There still has not been an iron-cast definition of "common name" and I think until we get that "reasonable ambiguity" can always be argued as being created. Also what is to be used as a reliable source for the "official name" when some buildings haven't even been built and there are no tenants?-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Official names. Andrewa ( talk) 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)