Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (identity)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 unclear 2 Pen names and abbrevations 3 Statement that makes no sense 4 Refer to transgender people by their "new gender" 5 Barbarian

[edit] unclear

This guideline is very unclear to me. Does it imply that groups identifying themselves as "white nationalist" should be identified like that by us? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It does imply that. What would the alternative be? Hyacinth 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling them racists, white supremacists and neo-nazis, I suppose, something few groups self-identify as. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pen names and abbrevations

I think this policy should be extended to include guidelines on how to treat pen names / stage names vs. real names, and whether or not abbrevations should be used in the title of a persons article. –Damsleth^{Talk|Contributions} 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) already addresses this. Please see the examples there: Pelé (not Edson Arantes do Nascimento) etc.--Pharos 12:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement that makes no sense

The following makes no sense to me:

In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate. For example: List of African-American composers is acceptable, but List of composers of African descent is more inclusive, and therefore more useful.

If one wants a list of African-American composers the first title is accurate and the second just isn't. I would also deprecate using anything so vague as "of Fooian descent". The text above is like saying, "List of French people" is accepatable, but "List of people" is more inclusive, and therefore more useful. In my opinion that just isn't true.
As the opening statement "In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate" is so vague that I have little idea what the point of it is, given that the supporting example makes no sense, I'm going to take it out for now, but it anyone does know what it is supposed to mean and can give a better example, by all means put it back. Merchbow 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refer to transgender people by their "new gender"

Where is the consensus on this? --WikiSlasher 12:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that you use the descriptor we choose for ourselves. Just as it is for any other aspect of a persons identity. --Hfarmer 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thankyou for answering; I was just wondering if there was any previous discussion on this. --WikiSlasher 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbarian

There is an RfC which is inextricably involved with WP:NCI going on here Talk:Barbarian/RfC_on_usage/. Any feedback is appreciated. - WeniWidiWiki 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)