User talk:Andrewa/systematic names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This page in a nutshell: In some particular subject areas, systematic names are preferred for article names even where unambiguous common names exist.

The nutshell summary belongs in the proposal, rather than the talk page, of course. But I thought it useful to have it here too for the moment. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents


I just thought I might run this up the pole and see who salutes. It surprises me that there's nothing of this nature in perennial proposals, but I can't see it if there is. That's where this may well end.

In fact I can't even find anything similar in Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, but there's a lot there and I may well be overlooking it. Presumably there aren't many similar rejected proposals, or it would be listed in the perennial proposals page. If you can find any, please link to them below.

Or it may be that Wikipedia is ready for a policy shift on this. Either way, this is intended to bring some current related discussions together, see below.

There have been many other similar discussions recently. If you know of them, and particularly if you're currently involved in them, please provide links to them below, and consider linking here from those discussions if the you think the participants there would be interested in contributing here.

I'm starting this in my user space simply not to clutter the project namespace for the moment. Feel free to move it to the project namespace if you feel the time is right for that, or to make edits here until that happens (if indeed it does). Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

PS If you do move it to the project namespace, I'd assume you would move the user page to the project namespace (Wikipedia:), this talk page to Wikipedia talk: (that's just a matter of ticking the appropriate box), and also please remove the bots sinebot deny template from the top of this page. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not long after I started making significant contributions (March 2006), I raised this issue in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. My proposal was mostly shouted down by people who basically argued that presentation was everything... if they bothered to argue at all. I would not be surprised if one or two of the most vocal opponents were actually children. I've seen this same issue pop up on the same page a few times since, but every time with the same results. Today, my view is that on the one hand there are a lot of people here who like to argue a lot on pages like the one above but produce rather little, while on the other there are relatively few people who do a lot of work but have great difficulty in getting the majority to see reason when it comes to making certain much-needed policy changes. It's a tyranny of the majority problem.
On this particular issue, it's tempting to think that only people with unfortunate educations and limited powers of reason would oppose it, but nothing could be further from the truth. About a year ago, I decided to see if things would be different at Citizendium. The first question I posted on their mailing list was regarding this very issue. Larry Sanger, the driving force behind the project, answered and said that he planned to leave that decision to the biology department once it got set up. Fine, I thought, so I went to work. In the mean time, I continued to campaign in favor of scientific names, and I was not surprised to find that most people supported the idea. However, when there were enough people in the biology group and it became obvious that the majority did want to use scientific names, Larry decided we needed to convince him first, and he was dead set against it. When it was clear to me that he was not going to allow this policy ever to happen at Citizendium (which he never intended to be a democracy in the first place), I left.
So, how can it be that someone as smart as Larry Sanger can be opposed to using scientific names to maintain order among potentially thousands of natural history articles -- a solution that is regarded as basic within the scientific community? Simple: he has no experience in dealing with the problem. Will people like Larry ever see the light? Perhaps, but I fear only after things get really bad first. --Jwinius (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that the discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive18#The Big Picture and later on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive18#Listing common names? Or are there others?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive17#Which takes precedence: official common name or actual common name? looks interesting too... brilliant quote at the end to support the conclusion the point is that scientific names are not always more stable than common names.
So it seems that the Tree of Life WikiProject is committed to preferring common names. That's not good for the prospects of this proposal! Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The links you've provided skirt around the central issue. Stability? That's an argument I've often seen in favor of using scientific names, but in my view it's not so much about that. I think one of the most important questions is whether it is possible to achieve the same level of taxonomic accuracy when using a mix of scientific and common name article titles than when using scientific names alone. I think not, because it makes the system less predictable and therefore more difficult to manage. It also makes it harder to spot duplicate articles for common name synonyms and nominate subspecies.
But then, most authors don't care about this sort of thing. Even at Citizendium, most authors were perfectly happy to just work on single articles, such as cat or horse, and completely ignore the rest of the taxonomic hierarchy. Unfortunately, this kind of nearsightedness, or an unwillingness to understand the issues involving the big picture, are quite prevalent.
This attitude also results in a lot of duplication of descriptive information within the articles. For example, when I was cleaning up the viper section, I discovered that very many species articles had descriptions of the fang mechanism -- something that only needs to be described once for all vipers (in the Viperidae article). I like to think that using scientific names for article titles promotes awareness and the use of the taxonomic hierarchy. Articles for the higher taxa are not just pages to put lists of species. It's not for nothing that all the viper articles have a wikilink in the taxobox to the Viperidae article. I don't see how using common names does anything to encourage this way of thinking. --Jwinius (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you've already tried and failed to sell this idea of Tree of Life article naming at both Wikipedia and Citizendium, then I don't see much hope for it here! It seems to me that Citizendium culture would be far more favorable to it than ours. Wikipedia does seem to have adopted it for some plants, but that's all. Hmmmm. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not a fair comparison. Like I said, as opposed to Wikipedia, Citizendium is not a democracy. At WP, policy changes are made by majority decision, whereas Larry has the final say at CZ. If CZ had been a democracy, they would have started using scientific name titles late last year and we would not be having this conversation. At least here at WP there is still hope. --Jwinius (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point. But very few decisions are made by majority in Wikipedia... WikiMedia Foundation board elections are the only ones that come readily to mind. Rather, it's all done by consensus, whatever that means. And you're right, CZ is authoritative by comparison. That's why I thought the culture there would be more favourable to this more authoritative standard of article names. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current discussions

Please add to this list. They can also be added to the proposal itself under the heading Under consideration.

[edit] Flags

From Talk:Union Flag where there have been many such discussions:

Please be aware that the Union flag is the flag on its own the Union jack is when the flag is flown from a royal navy steeplejack. The aticle title is wrong to be the Union jack it must remain the Union flag or else it is wrong.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up the views of many there. Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transilteration

Related even if not perhaps quite the same issue.

User talk:Andrewa/systematic names

[edit] Current exceptions

Are there areas where this policy is already being followed, but hasn't been documented in quite this way? I think there may be... perhaps in the areas of royalty, or other technical areas. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see comments at Talk:Queen Victoria for a recent discussion of this type. Dekimasuよ! 09:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Another one, as mentioned in passing there, is at Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 1. Dekimasuよ! 09:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just what I'm after. Thank you! Andrewa 17:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this one... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Article title reads in part Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page and later Common names are to redirect to scientific names. That's a clear indication to me that at least some systematic names are preferred to the common names. Andrewa (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of curious about the plant naming conventions. A quick search will reveal many plant articles that aren't under scientific names, even though the guideline says systematic names are always supposed to be used for plants. I wonder if the guideline about systematic plant names arose out of a big naming debate? There seems to be no such guideline for animal or other species names; the plant naming guideline seems not to be followed rigorously, and I certainly don't agree that systematic names should always be preferred over the common name. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that comment and opinion. It's beginning to seem to be something of an anomally to have this particular acknowledgement of an exception to WP:NC even determined on a case-by-case basis. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I close a lot of discussions at WP:RM, and I see it this way. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things states that, "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name... (emphasis added). Due to that, I've been moving plants as requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals, citing WP:NC(flora). The exceptions, as noted there, are for plants that play a significant economic or cultural role under their common name. I consider that to count as an "other accepted naming convention", and thus to be exempt from WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book titles

The article on Darwin's Origin of Species was renamed from The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species, see Talk:On the Origin of Species. Early discussion centred on what the original published title had been, which was later justified by appeal to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#When the title version "best known in English" can't be determined. Andrewa 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports teams

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Sports_teams: In cases where there is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used.

[edit] An official list of exceptions

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar rejected proposals

Surely this isn't the first time this has been raised? Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar proposals

There are two cases I can think of where there are actual and approved guidelines for systematic article naming.

  • WP:GREEK, but the Byzantine editors have a different and incompatible system, on which they insist because one major resource has adopted it.
  • WP:NC (settlements): a whole lot of little systems for each country. But read the unspeakable archives for the unending debate which has produced the present unstable compromise for the United States.

In short, good luck with this kettle of stinking fish; you'll need it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there are two Keys to staying sane on this matter: 1. Keep a sense of humour; And 2. Don't expect perfection. I'd be happy just for a little progress. Andrewa (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is also the slow-motion edit war conducted by a handful of German and Icelandic editors in favor of the eszett, thorn and other local spellings, even, or perhaps especially, where English does not use them. See the history of Voßstraße‎ which no English source spells thus above the level of a tour guide, and not all of them. (I believe the Icelandic involvement, where it is not mere pedantry, is a fear that it will extend to words where English does use diacritics, which would be equally contrary to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Have these ever been formalised as proposals? Or, do they either rely on the argument that these letters are part of current English, or perhaps just ignore the existence of WP:NC and its supporting pages?
There may be a case to be made for Voßstraße, Wilhelmstraße and similar street names. You'd only be looking at these articles if you had some knowledge of the local geography, in which case you'd probably recognise the names as spelled locally. If so, that's an excellent example of a specific naming convention that it would be helpful to document. Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that assumption is true; if it were, the streets would not be notable. Wilhelmstrasse is best known as a nickname of the German Foreign Office, which used to be on it. Voss Strasse occurs several times in William Shirer. (Both are in fact normally spelt as I give them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Andrewa (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The question revisited

To what extent should article names be based on English usage, and to what extent on appeal to some authority?

WP:NC establishes the basic principle for article naming as being what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. As a result we spend a lot of time discussing, case by case, what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, and often generate some considerable heat in discussion.

In particular subject areas, groups of enthusiasts (sometimes organised in a WikiProject but often not) manage from time to time to enforce a standard that departs from WP:NC, and is more systematic and/or authoritative. Some of these are documented in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (sixty-two pages at last count!) and most are not.

I think the tendency to appeal to authority rather than usage may be increasing as Wikipedia grows. If this is the case, then it may be a good time to establish a little more infrastructure for handling these conventions.

This may help to prevent instruction creep but I doubt it. It's more an attempt to manage it.

IMO the basic principle of WP:NC is very sound indeed. It's a post-modern approach that reflects the rejection of linguistic prescription, and is supported by similar movements in philosophy, mathematics, theology and even science that were a highlight of the 20th century and are ongoing. But perhaps it's not the whole story. Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject

The proposal currently reads in part:

several criteria must normally be met... The topic area is nominated by the members of a related, active WikiProject....

Is this a good idea? It gives the WikiProjects involved an authority not originally intended to give them, or for that matter to anybody. Comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The real problem with this language is that it casts doubt on the right of any other bunch of editors to make a proposal (for example, I don't believe there is a Wikiproject clearly associated with United States place names as a whole, and if there is, none of the competing proposals at WP:NC (settlements) were put forward by its members). How about is nominated by several editors, after discussion among themselves; the nominators should ideally have a sound claim to represent consensus, for example, as representatives of a related, active WikiProject...? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This is what I meant by giving the WikiProjects authority. It seemed a good idea to me, to use existing infrastructure rather than set it all up from scratch. It's an attempt to simplify the implementation of the proposal if it ever comes to that.
Your wording has the advantage that it doesn't raise a new issue, that of the WikiProjects and expanding their authority. That simplifies things at this stage, certainly. But I think it may make implementation a bit more difficult in practice. It may also make the proposal a bit harder to sell, because it means there's looser control over what happens. This will certainly appeal to some Wikipedians, but I suspect not to those most likely to support the proposal, who are systematic types and are by nature attracted to the rule of law. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject is only a set of editors, or rather, a spot where some editors talk. It has all the authority the editors have; it should not have more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Christmas! Yes, that's certainly the case now. But it doesn't have to stay that way. Why should it? This seems to me to be a gentle way to subtly expand the authority of the Wikiprojects without cutting across existing wikiculture. The Wikipoject remains a spot where some editors talk, the only extension is that consensus reached there has an authority in a specific area. This is only what the individual editors involved in the consensus would already have had, had they all joined in every discussion. It just streamlines this a little. This is what every policy and guideline does. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Because a WikiProject deserves no more authority than its members. WikiProject Mathematics may have a lot of impace; but that is fundamentally because it contains many people like Oleg Alexandrov and Paul August. Some WikiProjects are POV-pushing would-be cabals; some are one editor dressing up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uk Skyscraper names

There is currently an ongoing debate over weather postal address should be used such as One Canada Square or One Churchill Place or the "Common Name" such as HSBC Tower instead of 8 Canada square.

I say to avoid future renaming of buildings when a new tenant occupies the building and renames the building, the postal address should be used. Also there is no definition or quantifiability over what the "common name" is when multiple names could be classed as the "common name".--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that quantifiability is a problem... how do we tell what most English speakers would recognise? We've tried many different approaches. But I can't see the policy changing simply because of this... we seem to manage to get consensus in most cases.
Regarding the point about renaming, see my draft proposal below. Andrewa (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

555 California Street looked interesting, but it turns out that the street address is the official name. However Bank of America Center (San Francisco) which redirects there has almost as many links. Andrewa (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A draft proposal

The official name of a building should never be used just because it is the official name. Naming rights to buildings are bought and sold, and often change when the major tenant of a building changes. If there is any doubt as to the widespread acceptance of a building's popular name, then the street address should be used instead. So Empire State Building because it's famous by that name but... and we then quote an example of an article named after the street address, rather than by its official name.

Once we come up with a proposed naming convention, we can then decide on the next step. Two questions for now:

  • Does this wording capture your views, and if not how can we improve on it so it does?
  • Can we sell this to the community, and if not is there some other proposal or wording that captures at least some of your views, and which will be accepted?

Be warned, making new policies and guidelines is not for the fainthearted. Most proposals fail. Andrewa (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, if you're really brave, you could try for something more sweeping, to cover your views on the correct naming of the article on the Union Flag/Union Jack as well, see above. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That is fine and I have already weighed into the the union flag debate. I have just a few tweaks replace "should never" with "must never", "often change" with "regularly change", insert "or common name" after "popular name", replace "street address" with "postal address", replace "should be used instead" with "needs to be used" also insert "long standing world famous names for buildings are an exception to this rule" quoting the Empire State and the Eiffel Tower.

So my edited draft reads as follows.

The official name of a building must never be used just because it is the official name. Naming rights to buildings are bought and sold, and regularly change when the major tenant of a building changes. If there is any doubt as to the widespread acceptance of a building's popular or common name, then the postal address needs to be used. Long standing world famous names for buildings are an exception to this rule; Empire State Building and Eiffel Tower are examples of this exception. The rule should be applied as follows 8 Canada Square instead of HSBC Tower and 30 St Mary Axe instead of The Gherkin.

The following caveat also needs to be inserted somewhere:
The examples of the exemption are non-UK skyscrapers as the UK currently does not have any skyscrapers that fulfill the exemption.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a better approach would be to use the common name wherever possible (which is the wiki-wide convention) and if a common name can't be agreed upon, use the official name. Usually the official name will be far more commonly used than the postal address. Waggers (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the position of Waggers, and disagree with this proposal. If a common name cannot be determined, which is rarely the case, use the official name. Using the address, which is often not the common nor official name, is not always a good solution. Cheers, Rai-me 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There still has not been an iron-cast definition of "common name" and I think until we get that "reasonable ambiguity" can always be argued as being created. Also what is to be used as a reliable source for the "official name" when some buildings haven't even been built and there are no tenants?--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The name stated by the developers would then be the official name, and would likely be the common name as well, as it would be referenced as such in the press. Yes, tenants may change, but that is no reason to use the street address, which in many cases is used very little to describe the building. Instead, if an official name does change, just wait some time until it becomes clear from newspaper articles, websites, etc. that the official name is also the common name. This was the strategy followed with the move of Bank of America Center (San Francisco) to 555 California Street. Cheers, Rai-me 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official names

See Wikipedia talk:Official names. Andrewa (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)