I archived the earlier stuff and moved the main chunk from the main Wikipedia:History standards here, because it turned into a talk page of its own. A "standard" page should contain the standard, not a debate that only eventually led to one. (See my remark at the bottom; scroll down until you see a second box like this.) djmutex 19:13 8 Jul 2003 (UTC) Beginning of old "Standards" page: |
Use the form most familiar to English speakers (usually English-language)as the FIRST citation of terms
Supporters include: MichaelTinkler, Christian, sjc, User:JHK, User:Derek Ross, salt28, User:David Parker (with reservation, below), Ed Poor (except East Asian names as described below)
Opponents include:
Mixed opinion: User:Taw ( Miyazaki Hayao looks better as-is, with Japanese names of his movies first), and User:clasqm who broadly agrees with the proviso that we include the native-language term where we reasonably can, also some people's names do not translate (eg Ludwig van Beethoven does not become Louis ...)
salt28 would like to point out the obvious, that most 'opponents' are actually supporters when you read the statement, specifically 'most familiar to English speakers (usually English-language)' June 22, 2002.
Names of kings and queens should include their kingdom
E.g.: Alphonso XII of Spain
As most monarchical history likely to fetch up in Wikipedia will deal with the English monarchy, and for reasons of concision, kings and queens of England do not require a qualification of nationality; otherwise, the reference should state the nationality of which they were monarch, unless:
Supporters include: User:sjc, User:David Parker (except I'd include "of England")
Opponents include:
Those with mixed opinions include:
User:MichaelTinkler, who sees no reason to privilege the monarchs of England (
Christian and
User:David Parker agrees), since the names are in their language anyway.
User:JHK, who thinks the cognomens might should be part of the link itself...
salt28 thinks maybe one day, say 2054, people won't automatically think we're talking about England. Nor would aliens who find a CD containing wikipedia in the year 10,000 after humanity has destroyed itself think that.It would be nice if we tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help us God. June 22, 2002.
Vicki Rosenzweig because it's not even true that English monarchs are mostly likely to end up in here; we already have lots of German nobility, for example. It's a lot easier to put the longer form (Edward II of England) to start with than have to go back later if it turns out some other country also had two or more kings named Edward.
user:Ktsquare: All English monarchs should include ("of England"). As far as I know, Portugal has a King Edward, Greece has both George I and II. However, if one prefers using native languages, the Portugese case becomes King Duarte. No ambiguity would surface, in which case "of England" is not necessary for Edward Longshanks. IMO this issue and the "Use the form most familiar to English speakers" issue should be pulled together into a grand standard, i.e.
e.g. Olof Skotkonung means Olof the "Tax King". My suggestion is using Skotkonung since 1) the "Tax king" is not used widely by historians. 2) This Olof may not be the fourth.
Addition to the "of country" standard
Let's keep the "of country" standard -- wherever applicable. As much as I prefer to see, e.g., Philip the Fair (of France), it makes more sense to keep him Philip IV of France. That said, sometimes we DO use cognomens most often -- for example, Charles the Bald doesn't usually get a number, neither does Charlemagne or Louis the Pious -- or Ethelred the Unread(y). Strongly suggest doing background research before creating pages with titles that just don't work -- one of the basic 'pedia standards. Basically, use the most familiar name, if the ordinal and "of country" doesn't work
User:JHK suggests,
Names of titled, landed peers should read x (full name), (possible) ordinal of Title
So Arthur Wellesley (sp?), 1st Duke of Wellington
They absolutely SHOULD NOT be the first and middle names, no last name, no title -- which is being used far too often!
supporters include: User:MichaelTinkler, rbrwr (in the UK context, at least, and where there's no absolutely compelling reason to use the "common name" as with User:Bertrand Russell)
opponents include:
Unsure about the ordinal: User:David Parker (are they general? I don't recall seeing any in a non-UK context, but I probably haven't been looking)
When making entry on battle or war, list it in List of battles or War and put standard header
Supporters include: szopen
When writing dates, use BCE and CE (Christian Era) like the historians do, instead of BC and AD like the Christians do. (caveat: this rule has more opponents than supporters listed below)
Supporters include:
Opponents include:
I'm not a christian, but I have no problem with BC and AD. The existing Wikipedia year pages use BC. BTW in the new politically correct system, CE is not Christian Era, but Common Era. Eclecticology, Tuesday, June 18, 2002
I just wanna mention that this is the first time I ever read that there is another way of notation. Do you think most people that come here will know what BCE and CE mean? I'll continue using BC and AD untill BCE and CE become standard in the English language.I doubt that will ever happen since it is so deeply implented, but if it does, I'll play along.Common spelling, not common era. salt28 June 22, 2002
isn't this a violation of the policy of using what is most common and familiar? Vera Cruz
I agree. BC/AD are universally recognisable. BCE/CE aren't. FearÉIREANN 19:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Neutral:
Supporters include: JHK, Danny, maveric149 (except for #6: Toby is right "saint" is a natural disambiguator. However, I don't think there is a need to tack on saint to Paul of Tarsus becuase that title is both; widely used and already naturally disambiguated. But more ambiguous stuff like Stephen or Denis really do need to have some form of natural disambiguation).
Opponents include:
Those with mixed opinions include: Toby Bartels;
Toby Bartels' mixed opinion:
Eclecticology's mixed opinions.
Ktsquare's mixed opinions.
Jeronimo's (very) mixed opinions
Vicki Rosenzweig's mixed opinion/footnote: as has been noted, there are often several saints with the same names. Furthermore, there is a common Christian practice of giving children, including those likely to grow up to be monarchs, saint's names. There are at least two saints Louis, for example, one of whom was also king of France--does he get "Saint Louis IX of France"?
I don't think that this has shown up anywhere on this page (or its talk), so let me say this here: I've come to agree with Julie that "Saint" should be left out of the title, when there is some other natural disambiguator, such as "IX of France", "the Evangelist", or a surname. I only want to keep "Saint" for people that are always identified as such because there is no other identifier, such as Saint Stephen (which currently redirects to Stephen!). Nobody calls him "that Stephen guy that got stoned in Acts", nor do they call him just "Stephen" in a generic context, but everyboyd calls him "Saint Stephen", including atheists like me. — Toby 03:59 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)
End of old "Standard" page. |
The "suggested standard" on the main History standards page is an exact copy of the one above, with only one addition (the last entry about capitalization.) djmutex 19:13 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Some modifications.
I archived the earlier stuff and moved the main chunk from the main Wikipedia:History standards here, because it turned into a talk page of its own. A "standard" page should contain the standard, not a debate that only eventually led to one. (See my remark at the bottom; scroll down until you see a second box like this.) djmutex 19:13 8 Jul 2003 (UTC) Beginning of old "Standards" page: |
Use the form most familiar to English speakers (usually English-language)as the FIRST citation of terms
Supporters include: MichaelTinkler, Christian, sjc, User:JHK, User:Derek Ross, salt28, User:David Parker (with reservation, below), Ed Poor (except East Asian names as described below)
Opponents include:
Mixed opinion: User:Taw ( Miyazaki Hayao looks better as-is, with Japanese names of his movies first), and User:clasqm who broadly agrees with the proviso that we include the native-language term where we reasonably can, also some people's names do not translate (eg Ludwig van Beethoven does not become Louis ...)
salt28 would like to point out the obvious, that most 'opponents' are actually supporters when you read the statement, specifically 'most familiar to English speakers (usually English-language)' June 22, 2002.
Names of kings and queens should include their kingdom
E.g.: Alphonso XII of Spain
As most monarchical history likely to fetch up in Wikipedia will deal with the English monarchy, and for reasons of concision, kings and queens of England do not require a qualification of nationality; otherwise, the reference should state the nationality of which they were monarch, unless:
Supporters include: User:sjc, User:David Parker (except I'd include "of England")
Opponents include:
Those with mixed opinions include:
User:MichaelTinkler, who sees no reason to privilege the monarchs of England (
Christian and
User:David Parker agrees), since the names are in their language anyway.
User:JHK, who thinks the cognomens might should be part of the link itself...
salt28 thinks maybe one day, say 2054, people won't automatically think we're talking about England. Nor would aliens who find a CD containing wikipedia in the year 10,000 after humanity has destroyed itself think that.It would be nice if we tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help us God. June 22, 2002.
Vicki Rosenzweig because it's not even true that English monarchs are mostly likely to end up in here; we already have lots of German nobility, for example. It's a lot easier to put the longer form (Edward II of England) to start with than have to go back later if it turns out some other country also had two or more kings named Edward.
user:Ktsquare: All English monarchs should include ("of England"). As far as I know, Portugal has a King Edward, Greece has both George I and II. However, if one prefers using native languages, the Portugese case becomes King Duarte. No ambiguity would surface, in which case "of England" is not necessary for Edward Longshanks. IMO this issue and the "Use the form most familiar to English speakers" issue should be pulled together into a grand standard, i.e.
e.g. Olof Skotkonung means Olof the "Tax King". My suggestion is using Skotkonung since 1) the "Tax king" is not used widely by historians. 2) This Olof may not be the fourth.
Addition to the "of country" standard
Let's keep the "of country" standard -- wherever applicable. As much as I prefer to see, e.g., Philip the Fair (of France), it makes more sense to keep him Philip IV of France. That said, sometimes we DO use cognomens most often -- for example, Charles the Bald doesn't usually get a number, neither does Charlemagne or Louis the Pious -- or Ethelred the Unread(y). Strongly suggest doing background research before creating pages with titles that just don't work -- one of the basic 'pedia standards. Basically, use the most familiar name, if the ordinal and "of country" doesn't work
User:JHK suggests,
Names of titled, landed peers should read x (full name), (possible) ordinal of Title
So Arthur Wellesley (sp?), 1st Duke of Wellington
They absolutely SHOULD NOT be the first and middle names, no last name, no title -- which is being used far too often!
supporters include: User:MichaelTinkler, rbrwr (in the UK context, at least, and where there's no absolutely compelling reason to use the "common name" as with User:Bertrand Russell)
opponents include:
Unsure about the ordinal: User:David Parker (are they general? I don't recall seeing any in a non-UK context, but I probably haven't been looking)
When making entry on battle or war, list it in List of battles or War and put standard header
Supporters include: szopen
When writing dates, use BCE and CE (Christian Era) like the historians do, instead of BC and AD like the Christians do. (caveat: this rule has more opponents than supporters listed below)
Supporters include:
Opponents include:
I'm not a christian, but I have no problem with BC and AD. The existing Wikipedia year pages use BC. BTW in the new politically correct system, CE is not Christian Era, but Common Era. Eclecticology, Tuesday, June 18, 2002
I just wanna mention that this is the first time I ever read that there is another way of notation. Do you think most people that come here will know what BCE and CE mean? I'll continue using BC and AD untill BCE and CE become standard in the English language.I doubt that will ever happen since it is so deeply implented, but if it does, I'll play along.Common spelling, not common era. salt28 June 22, 2002
isn't this a violation of the policy of using what is most common and familiar? Vera Cruz
I agree. BC/AD are universally recognisable. BCE/CE aren't. FearÉIREANN 19:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Neutral:
Supporters include: JHK, Danny, maveric149 (except for #6: Toby is right "saint" is a natural disambiguator. However, I don't think there is a need to tack on saint to Paul of Tarsus becuase that title is both; widely used and already naturally disambiguated. But more ambiguous stuff like Stephen or Denis really do need to have some form of natural disambiguation).
Opponents include:
Those with mixed opinions include: Toby Bartels;
Toby Bartels' mixed opinion:
Eclecticology's mixed opinions.
Ktsquare's mixed opinions.
Jeronimo's (very) mixed opinions
Vicki Rosenzweig's mixed opinion/footnote: as has been noted, there are often several saints with the same names. Furthermore, there is a common Christian practice of giving children, including those likely to grow up to be monarchs, saint's names. There are at least two saints Louis, for example, one of whom was also king of France--does he get "Saint Louis IX of France"?
I don't think that this has shown up anywhere on this page (or its talk), so let me say this here: I've come to agree with Julie that "Saint" should be left out of the title, when there is some other natural disambiguator, such as "IX of France", "the Evangelist", or a surname. I only want to keep "Saint" for people that are always identified as such because there is no other identifier, such as Saint Stephen (which currently redirects to Stephen!). Nobody calls him "that Stephen guy that got stoned in Acts", nor do they call him just "Stephen" in a generic context, but everyboyd calls him "Saint Stephen", including atheists like me. — Toby 03:59 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)
End of old "Standard" page. |
The "suggested standard" on the main History standards page is an exact copy of the one above, with only one addition (the last entry about capitalization.) djmutex 19:13 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Some modifications.