Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.
I think I started it

I'm one of those who think that the "Names and Titles" naming conventions guideline could be written in a format that makes it sound less as an exception to general wikipedia principles on article namingref.

The issue has been ad nauseam discussed recently on several talk pages, and there appears to be a group of wikipedians that neither wants to get really involved nor is particularly fond of the present complications for naming any "lucky-by-birth stiff who had some pretentions to a hereditary right to rule others or had the remotest ancestral connections to such a person"Colonial cynic and occasional malcontent

The problem is, these wikipedians have no alternative: either it's the complicated "exception" rule, either it's only the basic rules that lead to ambiguity in many cases of article naming on persons.

That's why I announce here my plan to start a {{proposed}} guideline for dealing with article naming of articles on people. I think the logical name for such guideline would be:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)

Using a guideline name differing from the existing ones, as long as it's merely a proposal, also helps not to disturb existing rules (and their talk pages) too much: while in the end it might result in no more than a few ideas of this proposition being "absorbed" by other guidelines (or the other way around). But that's for the wikipedia community to decide then. First I try to cooperate in building a valid alternative, better in line with general Naming Conventions guidelines. --Francis Schonken 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

These seems like reinventing the wheel. I oppose the entire basis of this page. There's a reason we've spent years working out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 06:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) was by all means reinventing the wheel, taking too much time of too many people, while also in practice that wheel appeared somewhat square (to other wikipedia NC policies). --Francis Schonken 09:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of the naming policies there are necessary, because names of royals and nobility get complicated and confusing. The changes you want to make would largely be achieved by changing the wording of exception 2 to the monarchical titles rule to make it more expansive. I notice also that the peerage naming rules have been completely lost in your version. john k 15:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Well now, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) was linked from the "people" NC page from the start; presently the proposals for the appropriate versions of:
and
are built, both linked from the "people" NC page, the first of which contains the complete peerage naming rules, without changing a letter to the rules (only moving content of "exceptions" to a more appropriate place, without them needing to be called "exception" any more).
There's no "necessity" whatsoever to use the backward system of first calling the "Names & Titles" NC an exception to the "General Rule" on the "Common Names" NC, and then calling the NC "General Rule" an exception to an exception on the "Names & Titles" NC. The new proposed scheme maybe does away with some things you call "necessary": building a backward system is not necessary, and you have not been successful in showing me it would. --Francis Schonken 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, while there may be some problems with the current page, I don't see how this is to be solved by starting over again - the wording of the current page could be changed to be more appropriate without jettisoning everything that's already been done. Furthermore, this page as it is now should not be at a main space. It should be at a temp page until it is agreed upon (if it is to be agreed upon). john k 20:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
? Again, I didn't start over again. I copied all the rules you are so attached to and on which the wikipedia community worked so hard. I even copied the exceptions (only these were slightly adapted by me). The thing is on 3 temporary pages in the sense of bearing the {{proposed}} template, which is completely according to rules of wikipedia policy-writing. I even recuperated the talk & the content of the long-forgotten wikipedia:Naming conventions (cardinals), a guideline that was a wrong-named double of a part of wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles)... So please stop critisising methods: a merge in whatever direction is possible, so it appropriate now to start talk on whether that merge is desirable and if so, in what sense it is desirable. --Francis Schonken 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this policy proposal. It clearly will lead to yet more rules (cf instruction creepism) instead of simplification. Besides, the royalty and nobility NC, which has been one of the original tarhets of this proposal (knowing the history behind its presentation), are needed because of reuse of particularly identical first names among royal dynasties, which makes pre-emptive disambiguation a very desirable thing, and means that it actually is more laborious to check those persons individually than to follow a systematic naming convention for them. Arrigo 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Gap

One gap in the naming conventions is for onomastic articles. This brouhaha has popped up at the disambiguation guidelines, but it would be well to cover it in any naming conventions proposal. Should John be about the name "John" or a disambiguation of the people known only as John or a "List of John anything?" That question, believe it or not, has caused the spilling of many pixels. Now, it seems clear to me that John should disambiguate those known primarily as "John": kings, cardinals, bishops, books, and all the saints. It should also include the various "John of" folks (e.g. John of Gaunt and John of Salisbury) from the era prior to surnames. However, there are people who regard such article spaces as not disambiguations but as names of the names. They wish to make the article there an article about the name. Others think that any article with that title that has any disambiguation should then also have "Famous Johns" tacked on. It would be a relief if any proposed Proper Nominal Conventions included a clarification that it is, in fact, part of the naming conventions to lodge a big disambiguation at the site of first names. Geogre 15:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the remark. However, as per "scope" of the proposed guideline:
  • The name "John" is not "article content about a single person";
  • disambiguation of the people known only as John is a disambiguation page;
  • a "List of John anything" is of course even more a disambiguation page.
since all these possibilities are defined as being "outside the scope" of the guideline, I don't see very well how to discuss this (and I don't feel much for making the scope too large, while, well, hum, that might trigger pixel-consuming discussions, not related to the core of the thing).
But I'll see whether I can add something about it, either in the "scope", the "special cases", or maybe in the "single name" section (in that case explaining what happens if the single name is not unambiguous). --Francis Schonken 15:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I chose the "Special cases" section - also added section about double last names in the main body of the guideline text --Francis Schonken 17:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Point of this proposal

So far as I can make out, the major effect of this propoal would be to remove the rule that nnames of monarchs are pre-disambiguated with the country name (for example George I of England) and return to the older non-rule that would unpridictably add such qualifiers only when there was a name collison. I am not clear in what other cases, if any, the proposal is significantly different for the current policy. I don't see much point in going to a lot of trouble simply to restate policy. I certaily don't think the change i described in naming conventions for articles on monarchs is a good thing. If there is another point to this proposal i would like to know what it is. At the moment I tend to oppose this proposal. DES (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the rule "about monarchs being pre-disambiguated with the country name" is not removed: this guideline says,

The present guideline gives the general principles. In some cases more specific guidelines also apply, for example: [...], Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility), [...]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility) contains that rule still literally.
The present guideline indeed most of the time states the obvious, it is intended as the chain between "merely a principle" and the more complex rules, that require a bit more understanding. This chainpiece, I mean the present guideline, for a large part concentrates on disambiguation problems that require a little bit extra attention if applying the "simple principle". For example: why "Saint X" can be a content page while "Saint Y" is a disambiguation page. Also it is the only guideline, as far as I know (and I've been around for some time), that explicitly states that the format "<First name> <Last name>" is generally used, and not (for example) "<Last name>, <First name>" as many paper encyclopedias do. That's also self-evident after a short time, but this guideline is rather for the beginner than for the history standards expert - when starting to write about contemporary topics or whatever, in depth knowledge is often not yet acquired, and as per wikipedia:don't bite the newcomers policy, all that stuff should not be hammered on newcomers from the first day.
In fact, most of this guideline is in between the "very simple" and the "most detailed", as a chainpiece that was thus far missing, that's the way I see it. --Francis Schonken 22:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The "definition of nobility" issue

Why is a naming convention about royalty to be found in a page about nobility? The two are not the same thing. john k 23:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal House has as only category Category:Nobility - is that an error? --Francis Schonken 04:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Further, I added the dictionary definition of "Nobility" to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility), see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Western_nobility)#endnote_def --Francis Schonken 14:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The unclarity for royals issue (continued)

Remark by Bishonen:

[..] I think your people-naming page is very clear and logical, except for one thing, which is probably me: I have trouble grasping the Henry VIII example, in relation to what I thought was current practice — such as Charles II of England, now there's an article name I've typed maybe 50 times in my own editing — and what you say on the talk page about it. Could you explicate? Not that that's the main thing holding me up, it's scrabbling for a grip on the *present* policy pages, and trying to see how yours would include them in a three-layer system (is that it?). I do agree with you about the need to be quite detailed, so that we don't get all these naming disputes and adhockery on talk pages, and I have a lot of confidence in your work in this area. [...] Bishonen | talk 00:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue brought forward by Bishonen (and implicitly also by DES above) was tackled by changing the example in the "Ordinals" section of the proposed guideline from

Example: Henry VIII (for monarchs this is often combined with the previous)

to

Example: Henry VIII (for monarchs this is usually combined with the previous, so the page name is actually Henry VIII of England)

("previous" indicating the "previous section", which is the section about the "<First name> of <Location>" format)
So, Bishonen's reply:

Well, yes, but the example made me think there was something I wasn't getting. It's perfect now, thanks. [...] Bishonen | talk 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken 14:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Surnames

This proposal assumes that everybody had last names (in the fashion of modern Europe), although they may not not be known, or customary. This is simply false for most of the world at any time before 1400 or so; it is false for Afghanistan now; it is false for much pre-1914 royalty. In short, this page does not, and cannot, cover most of the cases in which the naming conventions are a problem.

The proposal does not "assume that everybody had last names (in the fashion of modern Europe)". What kind of nonsense is that. It assumes the contrary. It assumes that in many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many cases the "<First name> <Last name>" format does not work as article title. --Francis Schonken 07:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose adoption of this proposal in anywhere near the present form. Septentrionalis 03:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not base Opinion on Nonsense. --Francis Schonken 07:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A few suggestions

I think, rather than {first name} {last name}, a {first name} {middle name(s)} {last name} default convention would be more useful, with {first name} {last name} and other variations working as redirects. This would distinguish almost by default between articles about people with the same first and last names. It would also provide more information in the article (ie, the person's middle name(s)).

Additionally, I would like to see more explicit guidelines regarding redirects and when and how to use them.

Finally, there are obviously some issues with people understanding exactly what the proposal suggests. Perhaps rewriting it as a series of explicit instructions to be followed would be helpful, something like:

  1. When possible, use the {first name} {middle name} {last name} structure.
  2. When the person does not have a middle and/or last name(s), don't use them.
  3. In the case of X, where a Y is part of a person's name, do Z.
  4. When there is a penname, do C.

...

-Seth Mahoney 18:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The proposal is meant as an explicitation of the "common names" principle applied to articles regarding people, so would not advise to add "middle names" when they're not usual for naming a person.
For the redirects that would be either: "anything unambiguous that is not the article title can be a redirect", or some sort of instruction creep (which I try to avoid).
So, if it wouldn't be clear:
  1. the proposal "suggests" common names (and some approaches if it isn't clear what the "common name" is, or for solving precision issues); and
  2. the proposal tries to avoid "instruction", while that doesn't seem to work in the long run for wikipedia.
Don't know whether that answers your questions? Or whether you think that nonetheless some of your suggestions could be applied in the proposal? --Francis Schonken 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The reason I suggest rephrasing as a set of explicit instructions is for clarity. Scrolling through this talk page suggests to me that there have been some misunderstandings as to what exactly this proposal is about, and I think it would be made more obvious if it were laid out as a set of instructions.
As far as the inclusion of middle name(s) goes, that the current Wikipedia policy (I gather this is what you're basing this on) doesn't suggest the use of middle names doesn't mean that this one can't, certainly. Anyhow, its just my preference.
And as far as redirects go, I think that each step along the way explicitely stating not only when redirects are allowed, but when they should be created is a good idea, as this will lend an all-round consistency to the naming of the people articles, which, in the end, is what any naming convention proposal should aim at (likewise the middle name suggestion).
-Seth Mahoney 20:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Those who commented on "not knowing what exactly the proposal is about" are exactly those who best know what it is about, don't let that fool you. They know it's about the wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) getting deprived from it's right to be an exception to wikipedia:naming conventions (common names). And wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) is a set of instructions, that leads to endless futile discussions on whether an ordinal should be used for Charles the Bald or not; and what "system" should be applied for queen-consorts that survived their husband, with or without that husband being deposed, etc... etc... No, the thing can't be caught in a "set of rules" - the 6 archives & lengthy talk page of wikipedia talk:naming conventions (names and titles) are there to show that. You know, that guideline is younger than the "categorisation of people" guideline we worked on. And it needed, and still needs, a tremendous lot of maintenance, while every 5 foot someone wants to add or change a so-called "clear" instruction.
Why "categorization of people" worked with less maintenance is because of something you learnt me: make it self-regulatory - and how that is done is very simple: start from a clear principle (rather an idea than a rule), and elaborate that principle rather with examples than with a set of instructions. If you can't convince your fellow-wikipedians that the principle is OK, by showing that it can be applied in a variety of circumstances, it won't work. In this case the "principle" is the "common names" principle:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

The "names and titles" NC guideline started from the assumption that that principle could not be reasonably applied for the naming of articles on people, expressed thus:

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page.

Or:

Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules [of the "names and titles" naming convention] cover a specific problem.

And it rather created mess, than a straightforward naming of articles. It tried to sort all European nobility by UK peerage & royalty rules starting from the more or less late middle ages - while in every handbook one can read that the peerage &c is very different in the UK from the rest of Europe, and very different in old times.
The "middle names" won't work IMHO: would you know which of these two was a queen and which an empress: "Elisabeth Amalie Eugenie von Wittelsbach" and "Elisabeth Gabriele Valérie Marie von Wittelsbach"? The "empress" of the two is so famous that I'm sure you saw the films made about her (or at least heard about them). The queen has a famous music competition named after her, and should be at "Elisabeth von Wittelsbach" (without even indictating in what country she was queen) according to the present "set of instructions". The middle names make the difference, but the recognisability of that difference is so low that it makes no sense for wikipedia article names IMHO.
Re. redirects, I added wikipedia:redirects as a link to the proposal page in the mean while: that guideline about "redirects" is really complete (I checked this morning) - I still don't feel too much for including an (in my eyes) redundant double of that in the "people" NC guideline: would make it far too heavy IMHO. --Francis Schonken 23:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
To be sure, categorization of people isn't working right now. There are all sorts of active debates going on (usually with regard to gender, sexuality, race, and religion) that just seem to peter out when everyone gets frustrated with a lack of consensus. To be sure, also, there's a general trend toward adopting a new set of guidelines regarding self-identification with respect to these oft-disputed types of categories, so its not like there's no progress, and regarding other types of people categories, it seems to be working all right. But let's take things as they are: The current proposal is very much disputed. But I do think you have a good point regarding showing how a proposal can work through examples.
A few quick questions:
  1. Do you think I could still be of any hel re. cat-of-people problems? I don't know, it feels like I'm too long out of that, to be of any real help.
  2. Do you think this "naming of people conventions" guideline proposal has any intersection with the issues going on at cat-of-people? I never thought of that, but maybe I'm just slow-minded.
Regarding middle names, yes, I would know which of your examples was which if it were in a context: That is, if I was searching for one or the other I would likely know which I was searching for (and a well-designed disambiguation page that covered both of them would help with that, as would well-used redirects), if it appeared as a link in an article or category I would likely know which is which, or if it appeared as the title of an article I was reading I would likely be able to discern one from the other, especially if it had a small redirect at the top. We don't necessarily have to be able to discern from the title alone who a person is in order to make it a useful title. What should be aimed at instead is: 1) Navigability (as per the other page), 2) Consistency, and 3) Discernability, in no particular order. -Seth Mahoney 19:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Still not really convinced. I think this is probably very different as wel depending on person, on culture, on type of people (e.g. the seven-odd stage names for wrestlers was completely new to me); the great difference in cultures I know of is e.g. that in the Netherlands (a neighbouring country, speaking the same language as I am) middle names, usually abbreviated, are much more used than in Belgium. I can't think of a single Belgian whose middle name initials I would know. But could name a few dozen from the Netherlands. the biker/politician both named Frank Vandenbroucke here in Belgium, are never differentiated by middle names. I don't think you could even find their middle name initials on internet. I think I couldn't find them even if it were required for wikipedia. :( --Francis Schonken 21:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not completely beholden to the middle names thing, but I am rather attached to the principle behind it: Consistency for article titles, variation for redirects. You make really good points regarding the actual applicability of a middle name standard, and I could probably add to the list of people whose middle names, if they exist, no one would ever be able to find. -Seth Mahoney 16:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Detailed notes

Okay, here are my more detailed notes on this proposal, including my opinions on various sections (some of which is already outlined above):

Last name only

Titles which only include a last name (not including those cases where a person has only one name) should be redirects to the full name when unambiguous, or disambiguation pages when ambiguous in any way. Beethoven should be a disambiguation page between the composer and the film (and any other Beethoven pages).

per scope of this guideline proposal, the guideline does not deal with names of disambig and redirect pages, see WP:ENAV instead --Francis Schonken 08:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Middle names - abbreviations

The unabbreviated middle name should be preferred as the article title when it is known, as it gives more information. The abbreviated middle name should be a redirect.

In cases where the middle name of person is not most commonly known, but is known, the <first name> <last name> page should be a redirect to the <first name> <middle name> <last name> page. (Or the other way around.)

Disagree, for several reasons, most of them explained. As I think this fundamentally incompatible with the view of building wikipedia:naming conventions (people) as an extension of wikipedia:naming conventions (common names) (using "<first name> <last name>" as a sort of model is already a bit of a stretch in that sense, but one I can still defend, as I have done higher on this page), I propose that an alternative guideline proposal wikipedia:naming conventions (people)/alternative be built in view of the wikipedia community giving possibly more approval to such approach. I don't see however how I could work on that alternative proposal, as I don't believe in that approach because of far too prescriptive for being workable in Wikipedia. Not wanting to give unreasonable hope, maybe in the end I get convinced if someone elaborates it as a coherent proposal. --Francis Schonken 08:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Russian (and other Slavic?) names

Should always be <first name> <patronymic> <familial>, unless one of these is unknown. All other variations, if commonly used, should be redirects to the page with a title in the preffered format.

I'm really not experienced in Slavic names, the only thing I know is that they do something different than <first name> <last name> <optional maiden name for married women or mother's last name for Iberian people>. The present guideline ony states to use what people are referred to most often. Not apply the same "name format" to all slavic people. Other approaches should go in the more detailed guidelines, for instance wikipedia:naming conventions (Slavic languages) and/or in the alternate wikipedia:naming conventions (people)/alternative --Francis Schonken 08:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Maiden names

Should be redirects (where unambiguous) to the most commonly used name (if that name doesn't use the maiden name), or disambiguation pages (where ambiguous) to the most commonly used name (if that name doesn't use the maiden name).

Redirects/disambig pages not part of the scope of this guideline, see WP:ENAV instead (and/or insert this feature in the alternate wikipedia:naming conventions (people)/alternative proposal). --Francis Schonken 08:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Jr. or Sr.

Good, except that when Jr. or Sr. creates a natural and necessary redirect, the name without Jr. or Sr. should be a disambiguation page.

Same reply as previous remark. --Francis Schonken 08:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Pennames and stage names

The person's actual name should be the title of the article. Any pennames and stage names that are appropriate should appear in the article and should also appear as redirects (when unambiguous) or disambiguation pages (when ambiguous). This facilitates easy searching.

Exceptions occur when, for example, a person is almost exclusively known by their stage names or pen names (that is, when their actual name is nearly unknown). Examples: Madonna (actually her legal name, no?), Voltaire, and Prince. In these cases, the person's actual name should be a redirect to their stage name / pen name.

Disagree, as for middle names this disgresses too far from "common names" principle. "Prince" can not be a page name for a wikipedia article exclusively about a single artist. "exclusively known by stage name or pen name" should IMHO not be presented as the exception to the rule, it is the common names rule itself. For other treatment I would again refer to the alternate wikipedia:naming conventions (people)/alternative proposal (and/or to wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) that favours such more "prescription" followed by "exception" approach). --Francis Schonken 08:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation marks

If the preferred article name includes punctuation marks, then the name without punctuation should be a redirect. This facilitates easy searching, since at least I, and I'm sure others, rarely type punctuation when searching. Compare GWF Hegel with G. W. F. Hegel.

Same reply as for "maiden name" and "Jr./Sr." remarks above: see WP:ENAV. --Francis Schonken 08:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Parenthetical additions to names

To avoid POV, and to aid navigability, when just using a person's name is ambiguous between two or more persons, the name without parenthetical additions should always be a disambiguation page between specific persons. So, Engelbert Humperdinck should be a disambiguation page between Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) and Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) and any other Engelbert Humperdincks. -Seth Mahoney 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Tried to move Engelbert Humperdinck to Engelbert Humperdinck (composer), not possible, too extensive page history for the latter. As per my personal choice to avoid further new WP:RM filings while building this proposal (avoiding to initiate "voting procedures" you know), I only adapt the example on the guideline proposal page, if the move is completed without me initating it on WP:RM. If an as instructive example as the Humperdinck case, with bracketed disambiguation for both pages, could be provided, I'd be happy to insert that one instead of the Humperdinck example. "Instructive example" would mean: both persons receiving under normal circumstances a more "standard" disambig term like "(politician)" or "(musician)", insufficient for disambig. --Francis Schonken 08:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ENaming_conventions_%28people%29_Archive_1_3018.html"