Wikipedia:Geographical names naming policy (proposed)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason." If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Geographical names naming policy (proposed)

There have been many debates on Wikipedia over what title articles should have. Although much of actual effect of having articles at particular names is mitigated by the existence of redirects, the decision as to what title the actual article will be under nevertheless has to be made.

Proposed policy:

Contents 1 Multiple names 2 Ambiguous names 3 Exceptions and naming polls 3.1 Procedure for naming polls

[edit] Multiple names

Many places are referred to by more than one name. Most places have an "official" name which is different or longer than the name that most people use to refer to a place.

Principle: common names

This policy endorses the principle of "common names" which says that the article should be titled with the most commonly used name in English that is used to refer to a place.

• Examples: Kiev, Milan, Los Angeles

Rejected principle: Official names.

English is not a regulated language, and thus "official names" base their existence on a governmental agent which does not have authority over the English language. Were Wikipedia to support a policy of naming articles about places only by the "official" name, it would be intrinsicly supporting the legitimacy of the agent that makes the name official, which is a violation of the fundamental Wikipedia policy of the neutral point of view.

Principle: Google test

In cases where there are disputes about what the most common English name for a place is, the standard method of the Google test should be used for measuring which name is in more common use. Where a name returns many results not related to the place a set of exclusionary search terms can be added to the Google query string of all candidate names to ensure a count only of relevant hits. The Google test results shall only be binding if one name has more than twice as many hits as the next-most-common name. In cases where the Google test is inconclusive, because the most common is less than twice as many as the next-most-common or a set of exclusionary serach terms cannot be agreed upon, it is suggested that a naming poll (described below) be instituted to decide the name. As some places from time to time have changed their name or spelling, frequent review of the Google test results should be done to track the progress of a name change, although if a name is decided by poll, then the article shouldn't be moved more than once every six months.

[edit] Ambiguous names

Many places share a name with another place, creating an ambiguity as to which place should be described on the article titled with that name.

Principle: internationally well-known places

There are a good deal of places that are well-known internationally. By this it is meant that a well-educated person from any city in the world is likely to have heard of this place. These places should not be disambiguated in their title even if other places share a name with these places. Links to articles about the other places with the same name will be found on Placename (disambiguation) which will be linked to in a note at the beginning of the article at Placename.

Principle: disambiguation by largest unambiguous enclosing political entity.

An article about a place whose name is ambiguous should be disambiguated by placing at Place, Entity, where Entity is the largest enclosing political entity for which the name would not be ambiguous. "Political entity" means any political entity at the national level or below. We do not want articles at titles like Berlin, European Union

Principle: Entity should provide well-known context.

In cases where Entity is not well-known internationally, the smallest enclosing political entity which is well-known internationally should be appended. The principle of unique names don't need disambiguation doesn't apply to Entity because Entity is being used to provide context as part of its disambiguation function. Thus an Entity which is not an internationally well-known place name wouldn't be as valuable of a disambiguator.

• Examples: In the US some states have two cities with the same name, so they would titled City, County, State, as US counties are not well-known internationally.

Rejected principle: disambiguation by country-specific entity level.

Disambiguating either by sub-national unit (such as state or province) or by the national name by default is rejected because it requires deciding for each country which system to use, which is unnecessarily complicated and creates inequality in article naming from country to country.

Principle: unique names don't need disambiguation.

Places which have a unique name but are not well-known internationally do not need the encosing entity information. Information about where in the world the place is located will be in the first sentence of the article and as such does not also need to be in the title. People will only be encountering these articles via links from other pages or via a search, and not by thumbing or browsing an index, so including extra information in the title is not necessary.

Rejected principle: non well-known names should be preemptively disambiguated.

Places which have a unique name don't need context in the title because the context of where the place is located will be described in the first sentence of the article. Polluting the article namespace with secondary information is undesirable, and the exceptions required by disambiguation are only tolerated because they are necessary.

[edit] Exceptions and naming polls

From time to time, there will be places for which application of this policy doesn't make sense. Rather than dogmatically declaring that all articles shall conform to this policy regardless of whether it is sensible, this policy seeks to be flexible in these situation. Also, in the case that there are disputes about which name conforms to this policy, there should be a naming poll to determine what name should be used.

[edit] Procedure for naming polls

1. A poll shall take place as to whether an exception to the policy should be made for the particular place. The options of the poll should include the policy-conforming name(s).
2. Naming polls should be kept at a standard subpage of the article's talk page, such as /Naming poll, and should be announced at a centralized place for announcing polls, such as Wikipedia:Naming polls.
3. The length of the poll can be decided by the user who opens the poll. Any logged-in user may open or reopen a naming poll. The poll should state how long it will be open, which should be a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of one month.
4. Only users who have made edits before the poll opens are eligible to vote while the poll is open. Sock puppets are not eligible to vote at all.
5. When the poll is closed, the article will be moved to the poll option that had the most votes, regardless of the percentage of the total vote that option had.
6. The article should not be moved to any other name for a minimum of 6 months.

Procedure for reopening a poll:

1. Anyone can vote in the poll after it has closed, but their votes will not count unless the poll is reopened.
2. Any time after 6 months have elapsed after the close of a poll, the poll can be reopened, possibly with new options.
3. Previous votes in the poll should stay, although the original voters can move their votes to different options if they wish. Users should be confident when they vote in a naming poll that their vote will continue to count if the naming poll is reopened. Also, keeping old votes in naming polls should act as a stabilizing force help keep articles at consistent names.
4. Votes from users who have not made any edits in the 6 months previous to the re-opening of the poll should be removed. This means if a poll is re-opened immediately after the 6 month waiting period is over, then no votes can be removed.

It is recommended that the policy for naming polls be adopted for all articles, and not just for articles about places.