Talk:List of misleading place names/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the discussion during June 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:List of misleading place names/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Thank you. AYArktos (Talk) 00:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't List of ambiguous place names be a more accurate/neutral name? "misleading" makes it sound like a malicious cabal of quaint old hamlets is engaged in some kind of geosquatting scam :-)

chocolateboy 15:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that names can be ambiguous — but I don't think that the title has the effect you suggest (it would have to say "deliberately misleading" or "duplicitous"). I modelled it on Misleading food names. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that names can be ambiguous

"ambiguous" means "capable of two or more interpretations" according to the nearest dictionary (Longman) I have to hand.

We all know what it means, hence dab pages.

I modelled it on Misleading food names

I think the name fits better there (although I think "inaccurate food names" would also work), but deception in the naming and labeling of food and drink is a real issue (e.g. [1] [2]), whereas geosquatting isn't.

it would have to say "deliberately misleading" or "duplicitous"

"misleading", malicious or otherwise, has connotations of deception e.g.

"To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving." [3]

"ambiguous" doesn't have those connotations.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I can't see someone guessing that this page would be called List of misleading place names any more than I can see a bemused tourist wondering what all the fuss is about while taking in the landmarks of New York, Lincolnshire.

chocolateboy 20:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved things back; perhaps we can finish the discussion before any more unilateral changes?
The Misleading food names article has nothing to do with mislabelling, etc. "Inaccurate" would be wrong, as accuracy isn't involved; "Welsh rabbit" just isn't Welsh or made of rabbit, for example.
I don't rely on dictionaries, and certainly not on just one dictioanry. "Ambiguous" is normally used to mean that a word has two (or, if misused, as it frequently is nowadays, more than two) meanings. Place names don't have meanings, so can't strictly be ambiguous. The term can be extended to other contexts, though, so that's not a knock-down argument against its use here; I think that it's a consideration, though. (Note also that the definition that you give is of the verb, not the gerund.)
It's as possible to be deliberately ambiguous as it is to be deliberately misleading. The term "misleading" is commonly used without any such connotations (with regard, for example, to medical symptoms, statistics, physical evidence in the sciences, word meanings, etc.). Interestingly, in a Google search, the very first hit was of a use that lacked any connotation of deliberate deception ([4]; other hits preface "misleading" with "intentionally", indicating that "intentionally" isn't part of its core meaning.
I can't see anybody guessing any of the possible names for this article, nor do I think that that is relevant to the discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved things back; perhaps we can finish the discussion before any more unilateral changes?

I waited 3 days. I'm surprised that we're even discussing this, as I thought it was a no-brainer.

The Misleading food names article has nothing to do with mislabelling

I didn't say that article's subject is the mislabeling of food and drink. I said misleading names are relevant to food and drink and not relevant here.

"Inaccurate" would be wrong, as accuracy isn't involved; "Welsh rabbit" just isn't Welsh or made of rabbit, for example.

Hence the name is inaccurate.

"Ambiguous" is normally used to mean that a word has two (or, if misused, as it frequently is nowadays, more than two) meanings

I gave a perfectly perspicuous definition from a respectable source above. Let's not descend to Clintonesque cavilling over the meaning of "ambiguous". A name obviously can be ambiguous. If it can't, then we wouldn't have disambiguation pages like John Smith (which also has "no meaning"). If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.

Interestingly, in a Google search, the very first hit was of a use that lacked any connotation of deliberate deception

And what are the other 9 uses on the first page?

&c.

I can't see anybody guessing any of the possible names for this article, nor do I think that that is relevant to the discussion.

We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

If you don't like "ambiguous", how about List of shared place names?

chocolateboy 12:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved things back; perhaps we can finish the discussion before any more unilateral changes?

I waited 3 days. I'm surprised that we're even discussing this, as I thought it was a no-brainer.

That sort of remark isn't helpful. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Misleading food names article has nothing to do with mislabelling

I didn't say that article's subject is the mislabeling of food and drink. I said misleading names are relevant to food and drink and not relevant here.

Which is at best misleading, because the supposed relevance is in fact illusory, and your response is thus irrelevant to my point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Inaccurate" would be wrong, as accuracy isn't involved; "Welsh rabbit" just isn't Welsh or made of rabbit, for example.

Hence the name is inaccurate.

Accuracy is a matter of degree; this is a simple true/false distinction. If I call you a murderer, I'm not being inaccurate, I'm just wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ambiguous" is normally used to mean that a word has two (or, if misused, as it frequently is nowadays, more than two) meanings

That you need to omit part of what I said in order to make your needlessly aggressive point is telling. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, in a Google search, the very first hit was of a use that lacked any connotation of deliberate deception

And what are the other 9 uses on the first page?

&c.

We're not discussing the possiblity that it be used to mean "intentionally misleading".
A number of the items that you list don't involve the implication of intent (e.g., "Misleading headline", "that figure gives a misleading picture of changes to the underlying budget outlook", "likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise", etc.), and another uses the qualifier "intentionally" (as I pointed out in my comment). The list makes my point rather well. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see anybody guessing any of the possible names for this article, nor do I think that that is relevant to the discussion.

I don't particularly want to do that, as the likelihood, even if maximised, is infinitesimal (as is the likelihood that anyone would take the title to mean that these are places that have been deliberately named so as to deceive). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

This doesn't help at all, so far as I can tell; which part of it did you have in mind?. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like "ambiguous", how about List of shared place names?

chocolateboy 12:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't capture what the list is about; the point of it is that a lesser-known place has the same name as a better-known place, and that this can mislead people. That Churchill, Oxfordshire shares its name with a couple of other obscure villages in England is uninteresting, and wouldn't merit inclusion here.

Is your only objection to the title that it implies deliberate deception? If so, then we can easily ask for comments from other editors to see if your view is widely shared. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please don't disfigure my posts with interlineations. The correct way to reply is to quote.

That sort of remark isn't helpful

And that remark is?

Which is at best misleading, because the supposed relevance is in fact illusory, and your response is thus irrelevant to my point.

Actually, the point is that there is no evidence that anyone has ever been misled by the fact that there's a Paris in Texas and another in France. You tried to defend this article's name by appealing to another imperfectly-named (also by you) article and I endeavoured to offer some constructive criticism on that name. Rejecting that advice serves only to demonstrate that the only defence for this misnomer is another misnomer.

I don't particularly want to do that

That much is both clear and "irrelevant". It's Wikipedia policy, and unless you can come up with a cogent objection it will be enforced as such.

Accuracy is a matter of degree; this is a simple true/false distinction. If I call you a murderer, I'm not being inaccurate, I'm just wrong.

Incorrectly calling someone a murderer would be libelous and defamatory rather than "wrong". Furthermore, describing any food name as "wrong" (what's "right" about "cabbage" or "carrot"?) rather than inaccurate suggests an unfamiliarity with your own argument ("Accuracy is a matter of degree"). And, no, this isn't a "simple true/false distinction". Boston, Lincolnshire pre-dates Boston, Massachusetts, as I'm sure you know, but neither name is "true" or "false".

That you need to omit part of what I said in order to make your needlessly aggressive point is telling.

Well, I guess that's one way of gamboling away from the point. Here it is again. Perhaps you could respond to it this time rather than wandering offtopic:

---

A number of the items that you list don't involve the implication of intent

Most of them show that "misleading" has connotations of deception. "ambiguous" has no such connotations, and is a word that has ample "prior art" on Wikipedia and elsewhere e.g. WikiTravel:Ambiguous Names without Disambiguation Pages.

This doesn't help at all, so far as I can tell; which part of it did you have in mind?

The whole thing. Particularly the passage I cited, and this:

When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?

Note that "misleading place names" gets just 8 distinct Google hits [5], whereas "ambiguous place names" gets 30 [6].

Is your only objection to the title that it implies deliberate deception?

I don't think List of misleading place names is a bad title; I simply think that it has connotations of deception, and introduces a soupçon of POV that isn't necessary given that "ambiguous" is to hand. I also think "ambiguous place names" is more commonly used, and in keeping with other Wikimedia naming conventions.

If so, then we can easily ask for comments from other editors to see if your view is widely shared.

Yes. I'd welcome that, and would be more than happy to learn to live with the current name if someone else feels like weighing in on its behalf.

chocolateboy 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The lecture on how discussions should be conducted was unrequired, thanks; the interleaving of comments is very common on Wikipedia, and doesn't double the length of Talk pages as does your method.
Yes, people are often misled by place names; as I come from Boston, Lincolnshire (and regularly teach for the Oxford programme of the University of Georgia at Athens) I have had many first-hand experiences of that.
That you insist on my answering a question that only needs answering because you omitted the part of my comment that answered it is also unhelpful.
That you casually mention that I renamed Misleading food names without also mentioning that, as the Talk page makes clear, the suggestion for the name change, and the choice of new name, was actually that of another editor, also indicates an unhelpful attitude.
Five of the ten Google hits listed are clearly not cases of deliberate deception (I'm including the one that explictly qualifies "misleading" with "intentionally"); that's not a majority on either side, even in Florida. Being deliberately ambiguous is one way of being deliberately misleading; being accidentally ambiguous is one way of being uninentionally misleading. they can both be intentional and unintentional, and both are very commonly used in both senses, the context usually indicating the intended meaning. In this case, it's so obvious that the place names aren't the result of deliberate deception that I can't see the problem.
I don't expect the average Wikipedia user to put anything in the search engine; it's not that sort of page. It's likely to be found by following links. Thirty Google hits for "ambiguous place names" doesn't bowl me over, either.
I'll put it on RfC.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quoting doesn't have the disadvantage of a) misrepresenting comments and b) making a discussion unreadable.
Exclaiming "unhelpful!" every few sentences is "unhelpful".
I've lived in at least two places that have ambiguous names, and the coincidence has never caused anyone to denounce the name as "misleading".
"That you insist on my answering a question" &c. Please provide some evidence that a) "misleading" has no connotations of deliberate deception; and b) that "ambiguous" is inaccurate or inappropriate.
The "misleading" coinage is patently yours [7]. Someone else merely made it less clumsy.
"Thirty Google hits for 'ambiguous place names' doesn't bowl me over, either." It's a data point, along with the WikiTravel link and the countless disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. The only data point for "misleading" is another imperfectly named article.
"Five of the ten Google hits listed are clearly not cases of deliberate deception." The Google hits amply show that "misleading" has connotations of deliberate deception that are not shared by "ambiguous". The 5 citations that explicitly show this flatly contradict your claim ("it would have to say "deliberately misleading" or "duplicitous") that "misleading" is free from any such imputation. If "only" half of the people visiting this article think it casts a strangely judgmental light on the topic, then clearly the name is inappropriate and the more commonly used alternative should be preferred.
"I don't expect the average Wikipedia user to put anything in the search engine." We don't have a free-for-all naming policy, and the current name needlessly violates the Wikipedia policies of preferring the most common name and avoiding POV.

chocolateboy 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

List of ambiguous place names is . . . well, ambiguous. It fails to convey the fact that the names are commonly associated with other places. List of shared place names is even worse, because this describes numerous places that don't qualify for the list (such as Portland, Maine and Portland, Oregon — both of which are major, well-known cities in the USA). I see nothing wrong with the current title (which doesn't imply deliberate deception or malice of any sort), and I'm unable to think of another title that conveys the article's purpose as effectively. —Lifeisunfair 23:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While List of misleading place names is . . . well, misleading. :-) I would argue that "mislead" comes from "to mislead" which is a transitive verb, and implies that someone did the misleading (intentionally or otherwise). In fact, the intent in naming most of these places was not to mislead, but rather to honour the original place. I prefer "ambiguous" as it is the term generally used in Wikipedia for articles whose title might be misleading. In terms of search, someone is more likely to search for "Ambiguous", and the page would show up, while it would not happen with a redirect. Besides, I'm still pissed off at Mel Etitis for taking out Baytona (ex Gayside), Newfoundland and Labrador from the unusual place name article. :-) Luigizanasi 16:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Etymology isn't a reliable guide to meaning, though, and gerunds can't be transitive. The fact that it makes sense to talk about things being deliberately misleading, or potentially misleading, inplies that the term doesn't imply intent to deceive (though contxt can of course make a difference).
"Misleading" is used in many contexts in which no-one is doing anything (see some of the Googled examples above).
You started by saying that, if there is a person involved, it might be intentional or unintentional, but then switch to talking as though it's always intentional.
Sorry about the Baytona business; would a fiver cover it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not that it matters at this point since the comments are going strongly in favour of "misleading", but my point was, although I did not express it very well, is that for some people, including me, "misleading" has a connotation of intentional deception, while "ambiguous" doesn't. But then, English is my tird (superfluous "h" omitted) language. There's also the search issue (i.e. search on "ambiguous"), to which no one has responded satisfactorily (IMHO). Anyway, chocolateboy needed some help. :-)

On the fiver, you're on; I'll be expecting it in the post. :-)

As an aside, we're not the only ones arguing this point. A quick search on google for "unparliamentary language" and "misleading" reveals that the word "misleading" is somewhat controversial in practically every legislature following the Westminster system, but not necessarily always considered unparliamentary. :-) Luigizanasi 23:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My two cents - I am happy with either title, that is misleading names or ambiguous names, I don't like the idea of shared names much. I am pleased to see the places separated from the list of unusual names as I do not generally think it is unusual that two places share the same name. As an Australian in fact we look quite often for the original place after which our local town is named. My husband comes from Albury, New South Wales and when we were in England we visited the village of Albury. Regards --AYArktos 00:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps then List of potentially misleading place names? Nohat 00:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would work, too, but I see nothing wrong with the current List of misleading place names. And, being a NZer, I agree with AYArktos's comment. Former colonial places frequently take place names from the colonising power (Americans only need to look at places in the aptly named New Hampshire for good examples of that!). Grutness...wha? 01:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with 'misleading' place names, but it's better than 'ambiguous' since that doesn't cover the subject at all. Is 'contradictory' an option? Radiant_>|< 08:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Not really happy with "contradictory". That suggests to me things like the suburb of Bryndwr, in Christchurch, New Zealand (Christchurch makes Illinois look mountainous, and Bryndwr means "steep hill"). Grutness...wha? 10:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misleading works for me. I can't see that misleading has to imply deception beyond a word leading you to a meaning that isn't there. Steve block 12:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC response: 'misleading' does not, to me, imply any degree of wilfulness. David

| Talk 22:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misleading looks fine to me. -- Joolz 12:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_misleading_place_names_Archive_1_f95f.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:List of misleading place names/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Comment

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search