Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

anglicization 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contents 1 Petitio principii 2 Borderline cases 3 reliable and verifiable sources 4 No established usage 5 Further rationales 6 Use English? 7 interesting bit from NC:Indic 8 Dated stuff 9 Google tests 10 GoodDay or the Croatians 11 English usage in different kinds of media 12 No established usage 2 13 Anyone have a problem with Sept's edit today? 14 Copying conversation from WP:VPP 14.1 Arguments 15 What about encyclopedias which ignore English usage? 16 Extraordinary case 17 under development 18 Borderline case? 19 Diacritcs and this policy

[edit] Petitio principii

This edit begs both questions at issue. Most of those who would use letter forms uncommon in English also assert that English, Icelandic, Croatian, and so on, use the same alphabet, not distinct "Latin-based alphabets". They are wise to do so; there might well be consensus to extrude such spellings if they were admitted to be distinct.

"Latin-based" becomes particularly interesting phrasing when addressing thorn (letter), which is a rune, not based on Latin at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is, however, a potential compromise. This leading paragraph is largely redundant with

Similarly, names originally in a non-Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated, to ensure readers will understand them. If there is no usual English form of the name, use a generally accepted system of transliteration.

two pargraphs below. Merging would shorten the lead, and cause it to start with Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as it ought to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If this compromise is adopted? Does that mean names like Teemu Selänne, will be replaced by Teemu Selanne (which is the most common usage, in English)? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would continue to straddle the issue of whether to consider diacritics English letters or not. (It may reduce the amount of "Latin alphabet" bafflegab; but no change will eliminate that while nationalists wish to force their native spellings upon us.) If Teemu Selanne is most common, and supported by standard references, this guideline supports it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can hear the pro-dios screaming now. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the suggestion above to use Latin script, which is the most appropriate wording, I think, but that found no consensus. Since there are still people puzzled by the ambiguity of "Latin alphabet", I wanted to clarify that the 23 letter alphabet of Cicero was NOT intended. Could someone suggest a better alternative which resolves this ambiguity? Jasy jatere (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the controversial sentence, by taking out the first paragraph and expanding the third to

Similarly, names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. If there is no usual English form of the name, use a generally accepted system of transliteration. The native name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the English name isn't one; redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English exonym for the subject, it should be mentioned, even if it is not the most common English name; exonyms should always be at least considered for the title of the article.

Tweaks of this wording are doubtless needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good initiative. I might suggest to take out Meissen from the examples, since the other examples are better known and subject to less discussion. Disclaimer: this is not intended to be an argument for or against sz, it is simply about the number and clarity of examples. Maybe ol'pal Victor Emmanuel can also go, he is not the most widely known guy eitherJasy jatere (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of Meissen, as far as I am concerned, is that it is a mere orthographic difference, as distinct, say, from Florence, and that (since we have looked into it) it is one where English usage is almost unanimous. I think Victor Emmanuel, as opposed to Emanuele has the same quality. We should have some such example; which one is less important. Can you think of a better one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Used Aragon/Aragón for the Meissen case. I first thought that Zurich would be a good example, but the page resides currently at Zürich (which I find incorrect). I am not sure what Victor Emmanuel/Vittorio Emanuele is intended to show. Maybe use another monarch with only one name? What about Isabella of Castile, who has an extra l in English? Then again, maybe not use royalty at all, since they have their own NC... Jasy jatere (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aragon is unquestionably overwhelming English usage; Zurich may not be, although it would be a good example of an exonym. So would double entendre and Cracow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know one thing. I've been trying to get 'diacritics' completely off NHL team articles for months. So far? no dice. Masterhatch was correct, the pro-dios moved articles to dios & put dios in their content (years ago) without discussing it first. As Masterhatch said, it was an underhanded takeover. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, it was all a plot to sneak it by everyone. You watch too many spy movies or something. -Djsasso (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can wipe out my posting (if you want). I'm not gonna win this. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borderline cases

This section is vague; and is currently being abused in move discussions. The intent seems plain: Use the most common English name; even where there is some tendency to adopt local names, as with Torino during the Olympics, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Do not guess what English will adopt, look at what it has adopted. On the other hand, mere google results are rarely enough. Tests using www.google.com are subject to many systematic errors, and to chance; unless they are overwhelming, consult standard secondary sources and see what they use. I suggest rewording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reliable and verifiable sources

I wonder in how far reference to WP:SOURCES is appropriate in the context of UE. The problem is that we are not dealing with the factual content of the sources (Is Göttingen really a town in Germany?), but with the form (Göttingen vs. Gottingen vs. Goettingen). I think WP:UE should state that sources which are authoritative for language use should be given, which may or may not coincide with their reputation for fact-checking. Two examples to illustrate this

• bbcsinhala.com is one of the most reliable sources on the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and clearly passes WP:SOURCE, but the level of English is appalling
• Mary Shelley is surely a good source for the use of English, but Frankenstein should not be cited as a source in medical and biological articles

This is not a huge problem as the intended meaning should be clear to everyone, but as an encyclopedia, we should strive to be as accurate as possible. Any suggestions how to cope with this? Jasy jatere (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would consider the sort of sources mentioned at WP:NCGN to be good sources here: encyclopedias, the Oxford guides and Cambridge histories, the general usage of the press. If we can get a well-sourced statement on usage, so much the better, but they will be rare. If general scholarly usage is Göttingen, and I think it is, that may be the best we can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No established usage

I would like to talk about the current wording of this section in regards to Zoran Zigic or Zoran Žigić and other similar names from Eastern Europe. If the name does appear in English texts in both formats which should be used? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It will likely be the latter, due to the fact that English Wikipedia is stuck with diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. The current version of the guideline seems to be pretty clear about this:

When there is no established usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage.

The 'correct' version seems to be Zoran Žigić in this case. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As we are not talking about no usage just little usage, How do you conclude that Žigić is more correct than Zigic? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It says correctness of translation. Translation involves two languages. From this, I infer that it is not the correctness in English that is intended here, but the correctness in the "other" language, otherwise the other language would not be referred to. This fits well with the heading of the section, since in the absence of established usage in English, there will be no cue to decide what's correct in English hence correctness cannot refer to English. From this, I conclude that the intended meaning is "philological correctness", because I cannot think of any other way how this sentence could make sense. To drive the point home, the "other" language for the case you mention is Serbian, there is no "correct" rendering in English, so that we fall back on the "correct" rendering in Serbian, which is Zoran Žigić. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Giving this a bit more thought, it appears to me that the gentleman normally would use Cyrillic letters. In that case,

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name. You state above that there is no common English form, so the systematic transliteration must be applied, which is Zoran Žigić Jasy jatere (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If Zoran was a Croat (using Latin script), the first paragraph would apply, with the correctness in Croat being decisive Jasy jatere (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an old argument on English Wikipedia, which I fear will never be solved. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is no established usage, I'd go with the diacrits. Readers who don't know how to interpret them will get about the same information from either version, but readers familiar with the Serbian writing are not mislead. Remember to create a redirect, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's either a paucity of English usage of a name or term, or a degree of balance between original and "Anglicised" orthographies, I'd be inclined to go with the former. The trouble is, this quickly turns into a slippery slope, where the "local" editors cite one such original-spelling instance as reason for their favourite case to get similar treatment (or, proof of victimisation if such isn't forthcoming). Alai (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Jasy jatere last comment interpretation of the first paragraph, and would like to know how (s)he comes to that conclusion. Jasy jatere 2nd from last comment is exactly were I have problems because although there is no one common name, "Zoran Zigic" is used in English articles and it is the from that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure where you want to get at. Do you think the distinction between established and unestablished is not useful? Or are you suggesting that transliteration rules should have no bearing on article names? Could you restate your position with regard to Viktor Kovačić (a largely unknown Croat with diacritics), under the assumption that English people have not had a lot to say about him, but refer to him as Kovačić and Kovacic? BTW, I am male. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing some google-grade research on Viktor Kovačić, usage looks somewhat mixed, but there certainly are quite a few that preserve the S-C orthography, so in such cases I think you have a fair point. In the extreme case where someone gets no mentions at all in reliable English sources -- and setting aside any issues that throws up about the notability threshold -- I certainly think we should be using the original spelling, not coming up with our own "de-diacriticising" scheme. The trouble is when people start using such cases as "precedent" for other cases, citing it as evidence that "Wikipedia's own style" is to use diacritics regardless of whether reliable English sources do. Alai (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In extreme case where someone gets no mentions at all in reliable English sources there is a strong case for arguing that the person is not notable for the English Wikipedia. However even if they are notable we are not debating that point, Viktor Kovacic who is mentioned in English reliable sources with Google Scholar and Books about twice, I would probably put that in the "leave the name at whatever the original author used" category. However in the case of Zoran Zigic or Zoran Žigić then the person is better sourced because they are a war criminal who stood trial in an international court. One solution would be to do the same, and say that the name should remain as it was wen the article was created, as is done in the WP:MOS for national varieties of English when there is no clear indication of what English spelling to use. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that notability is itself language-dependent, but it does seem such an extreme case that that flag would certainly be raised. I'd be strongly opposed to the "first spelling used" rules being employed in such a context. It's supposed to be the method of last resort even in the "national varieties of English" question, and where employed it always comes uncomfortably close to vindicating a degree of article "ownership". Original or "official" spelling seems to me to be a much more neutral sort of default, at least as regards the antics of Wikipedia editors. Alai (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no official spelling in English, there is only established usage. Why not use the first come rule when there is "No established usage" as it would certainly cut down squabbles about names? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to "official spelling", but to usage with some sort of official status as a name (such as, say, forms of the names of countries). It serves no purpose to cite established usage, when we're specifically, by hypothesis, discussing cases where there is none. Your suggestion would most certainly not "cut down squabbles", it would just move existing ones around, and create a few more (where articles at demonstrably wrong titles are alleged to be unmovable due to article-owners citing the proposed 'we were here first' rule). My suggestion would cut down on disputed cases (insofar as it's possible to characterise what people will in fact dispute), and has a basis in objective fact, and customary practice elsewhere, as opposed to on-Wiki behaviour. (And potentially poor on-Wiki behaviour, which this would at least marginally incentivise.) Alai (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of a hypothesis were there is no established usage, and "where articles at demonstrably wrong titles are alleged to be unmovable due to article-owners citing the proposed 'we were here first' rule"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that the wrong tense? There are no such cases at present, because there's no such rule. But for the sake of illustration, look at the debate over Novak Djokovic, where numerous people argued in favour of what was demonstrably wrong according to the current convention, and imagine if they had such an additional "argument" to employ. And in cases where the article was created before Unicode support, diacritic supporters would of course cry "foul!" if such an argument were used. Alai (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I fear that "no etablished usage" is not the good section to look for a solution for the Zoran case. Zoran has to be transliterated from Cyrillic. The second paragraph of the first section deals with this. Systematic transliterations have to be used, unless it is common usage to use an unsystematic transliteration, such as Tchaikovsky. From what you say above, Zoran does not seem to fall in the category of Tchaikovsky Jasy jatere (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about the wording in this section, so citing this section as justification for its wording seems like a circular argument to me. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you suggest a new wording. Which sentence would you like to change and how? 80.135.146.226 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As candidates for "systematic transliterations" go, "Zoran Žigić" would be rather trivial: it's just flipping from one Serbian script to the other. The question is then, whether Gaj's Latin alphabet itself requires further "transliteration". If using the form of the name commonly found in reliable English sources were to be consistently applied across the board, almost all Serbian (and Croatian) names would be tranliterated by dropping diacritics, converting non-standard letters into digraphs, etc. So, I don't think that one can really argue that doing something different for those few cases where there's not an established convention, is exactly being "systematic". Alai (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further rationales

I'm wondering if we should add more rational arguments to our current justification of policy. It's always much better to convince than simply browbeat someone with another wiki-acroynm There are a couple that I can think of:

1) One of wikipedia's problems is credibility. We can build a free source of all of humanity's knowledge, but if it is not trusted, it is not (as) useful. Using suprising, idiosyncratic, or pedantic titles harms our credibility. When a collection of amatuers adopts an idiosyncratic convention in the face of professional and official English usage, it is a reminder that we are, in fact, a collection of amatuers. This is especially true when the surprising title is driven by "nationalistic" concerns. If users learn that a apparently "bizarre" set of characters is vigorously maintained by a group of chiefly nationalistic editors, they may start to wonder what other biases are vigorously maintained by that group of editors.

2) One of wikipedia's (potential) strengths is its usefulness to translators. With interwiki links, translators (of all levels) can instantly crack difficult terms and especially proper nouns. I've had this experience repeatedly with translation into Chinese. My dictionary didn't have the characters for "Minneapolis", but by going to the english wikipedia article on the city and clicking on the zh: link, I could instantaneously find the coventional chinese translation for the name. This goes for translation into English as well. With article titles, we immediately display the conventional name for a subject, such that a prospective translator can discuss the subject (in print, at least) with "native" fluency.

3) It is implied by our article naming policies and guidelines that titles are generally the most common usage. This follows not only our own policies, but adheres to the traditional understanding of reference works. Why do we consult Britannica and dictonaries for arguments on usage convention? Because we understand that encyclopedias and dictonaries are the repository for what is considered to be conventionally correct. The implied factual claim of our titles in en:wiki is that they are the conventional English names of the article's subject. When our titles do not follow English convention, they are untrue and inaccurate.

I'm wondering if there's any comments on the validity of these arguments, and whether or not they are strong enough to include in the policy? Erudy (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, as for 1, isn't it better if readers are warned about potential biases upfront? I don't buy 2, as we try to list all reasonably well-used spelling in the lead. And 3 is essentially a restatement of our policy. I don't think we need to make much of an argument for the use of conventional English names - the trouble is in the case where there is none, or there are multiple equally plausible versions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't the best way to warn readers about potential bias on content is actual bias in format. If anything, I think that giving up on the naming issues may well just encourage further "ownership" of an article by particular groups or factions of editors. If you don't believe that there's the need to make the argument in favour of conventional usage, take a look at Talk:Novak Đoković (sic). There, you'll see a great deal of opposition to such, arguments latching onto the "diacritics disputed" section of this guideline as licence for all the Serbo-Croatian orthography one could eat, and a lengthy laundry list of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, which one might take as a "to do" list, where in many of these other cases conventional usage is being cheerfully ignored in favour of local (in one sense or the other) preference. Alai (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Stephan may misunderstand 2: we try to list all reasonably well-known names in the lead; but we use the most well-known one in the title (where, in Erudy's case, the Chinese name could be found even by readers with no Chinese). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Erudy, I simply don't know what to say. Let me begin with this: I come from Croatia, and I don't see anything - as you've put it - "bizarre" about the alphabet of my language. It is a Latin-based alphabet, with five extra characters compared to English. (English has - incidentally - four extra characters compared to Croatian: q, w, x and y.)

Let me also tell you this: there's nothing "professional" nor "official" about writing "Goran Ivanisevic" instead of "Goran Ivanišević"; it's more like sloppy, and it's worse than that if it's done intentionally. The "tradition" od jettisonning "funny" characters in English is due to nothing more than: 1) technical limitations of conventional printing technology where such characters were not available as recently as a decade ago, 2) writing for local audience; a newspaper in Alabama simply won't bother. This is all understandable; it happens in other languages too.

However, Wikipedia is something quite different: there are no technical limitations in that respect, and there is a global audience, if ever there was one. I can't stress this enough: English Wikipedia is not an American or British encyclopedia, it is a world encyclopedia; at least I've always seen it that way, otherwise why would I take part in it? We are "nationalists" and "amateurs" in the same vein as National Geographic is. Yes, Ivanišević. Yes, Đoković. Yes, José María Aznar. Yes, Herðubreið. My nationalism is quite odd... And that's what's the central problem with your argument: it is not only logically and factually incorrect, it is not only insulting: it is hypocritical because it attempts to paint globalist, worldwide views as "nationalism" and general irrationality, while promoting parochialism under the guise of "tradition" and "professionalism". GregorB (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

GregorB you wrote "English Wikipedia is not an American or British encyclopedia, it is a world encyclopedia", I disagree in so much as it is an English language encyclopaedia and we should follow English language usage (not in Croatian or any other foreign language's usage). How do we know what English usage is? We follow he advise in WP:V as we do for all content, we look at the references and wider English language sources and follow their lead, so that we comply with the naming convention policy so that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". If (to use your example) "Goran Ivanišević" is the most common spelling in reliable English language sources then we ought to use that spelling and if it is "Goran Ivanisevic" then we use that, or any other combination of letter that reliable English language sources dictate. If we do that, we follow the Wikipeia policies. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, but there are no reasons to write "Goran Ivanisevic" that are intrinsic to English language; it's just common usage (two different things). But this usage has been heavily influenced by two factors I mentioned, none of which apply to Wikipedia. (Please don't get me wrong here: the city in Italy would still be Florence, not Firenze.) My point is this: Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. It just so happens that it is written in English; a millennium ago it would be written in Latin. There is no good reason to maintain usage conventions that are not mandated by the language itself and are particular to English-speaking countries such as USA and UK, if we were to maintain a worldwide view. National Geographic and many other publications intentionally depart from "most common spelling in English usage", and for a reason: this is precisely because they strive to be reference material. Inasmuch as Latin-based alphabets are involved, I think we should depart too, as a matter of policy. GregorB (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Another issue. Whether we like it or not, nowadays Wikipedia is determining what is the most common usage. What is written in Wikipedia is most common. So I find this argument a little bit outdated. At least in cases like this, that most English media use ASCII version, Wikipedia should use original version. I do not see problem that some might not recognize Ivanišević, if they search for Ivanisevic. And that's the basic rule.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It may someday be true, as User:Iricigor claims, that Wikipedia will determine usage, but not yet. And the policy is now to use whatever is the common English usage. Contrary to the claims of some, this is not a "world encyclopedia" any more than is the Italian wikipedia. Sure, more people use it, as is their choice, but if non-English speakers come here, they should play by the rules. And yes, GregorB, technical limitations have been largely eliminated, but that is not the only limitation. The vast majority of English speakers like their text with minimal diacritics. This is self-evident to anyone who reads a variety of English-language material that covers world topics.

Look, guys, we are familiar with your arguments. And they're not wrong, per se, but they are irrelevant. Personally, I don't mind diacritics; I just read past them (I feel differently, however, about non-English letters, e.g., ß and þ.) But most native-English speakers feel differently, and it is for them that this Encyclopedia is being written. We are trying to disseminate as much knowledge as possible, and if someone decides to not read an article because they are uncomfortable with the non-English markings, then we have failed in our task. (And please, don't tell me that we fail them when we give them "incorrect" spellings. They're not incorrect spellings, they're English spellings.)Unschool (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia or not is perhaps irrelevant; at any rate, it belongs to those tho read it and write it, whoever they are. I'm well aware of the way diacritics are treated in mainstream English usage; maybe Wikipedia will exert some influence in that respect, maybe not - personally, I don't really care. What is really hateful to me is the idea that diacritics should be stripped from Wikipedia just because USA Today (or what have you) won't bother. I must bring up National Geographic for the third time (and a link to their style manual): why would they choose to make their readers uncomfortable? Is this reason applicable to an encyclopedia? If not - why not? GregorB (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But most native-English speakers feel differently, and it is for them that this Encyclopedia is being written. - is it? I was under the impression that we were writing an encyclopaedia for all English speakers - be it as a first, second, or 'n'th language. And I honestly doubt that anyone is not going to read and article because of the presence of diacritics, or even 'non English letters' (although þ *was* an English letter up till the printing press, and probably still would be were that not introduced, and ß is more of a ligature than a letter.) I see naïve and café almost as often as naive and cafe, and imagine they would be more common were people not lazy. --Neil (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One more comment, more of a side note: I find the idea of using "English sources" for matters of style problematic in principle. An example: "100 m" (as in "100 meters") is correct, and "100m" is incorrect, according to both WP:UNITS and ISO 31. But IAAF, FINA and IOC all use "100m" (on their respective web sites at least). The point is this: ISO 31 trumps everything (by convention, whatever - it doesn't really matter why and how), and IAAF, FINA are all wrong. Otherwise we'd have "100m" in articles about swimming and athletics, and "100 m" in articles about, say, architecture. Doesn't make sense. One should source the rules themselves, not their outcomes. GregorB (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use English?

Can anyone point me in the direction of any discussion (in the archive?) as to why English should be prefered? That is, in many contexts, at least in British English usage it is not unusual to use a foreign title (for instance in the title of Proust's 'À la recherche du temps perdu', which is currently located at In Search of Lost Time), and IMHO it should be Wikipedia policy to put articles at a foreign title, where the title has substantial usage in English. However, I acknowledge that this probably has been discussed many times before, and do not want to rake over old ground - hence my request. --Neo (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why use English in the English Wikipedia? It's a real puzzler, that one... This discussion starts on-wiki at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (anglicization), and before that, on the mailing list. And continues to this day, where people will confidently present their own Alice-in-Wonderland definitions as to what "English" is, to make application of this convention impossible or meaningless. (See links in the previous section.) However, the current convention (in the odd instance where it actually gets followed) is not to use English not matter what, but to follow what's commonly used in reliable sources that're published in English. This is vague enough in practice that I'd personally be in favour of an element of presumption in favour of original names and titles. (I assume that original is what you intend where you say "foreign".) This would of course also be tremendously vague in application, since one still has to draw the line somewhere as to what's sufficient use in English, and people with "their" article on the wrong side of wherever that line falls might be even less happy than they are at present. (Or, all the more determined to insist that it not be.) Maybe this is worth kicking up to the village pump, since discussion at individual pages and here has proved less than decisive so far. Alai (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There's simply too many Naming linguistic conventons. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] interesting bit from NC:Indic

I found the following sentence on NC Indic, which might also be a good recommendation for UE

Personal, organisation, and company names in current and recent usage should generally be romanized according to the nameholder's preference, if that can be established.

Could be of relevance for scholars on the one hand and sports people on the other hand. Comments?Jasy jatere (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's roughly in line with my thoughts about "official" names. The question is, should this have any bearing on the NCs in general (currently it does not), and secondly, how does it interact with "common names". Personally, I'd be happiest to use it in instances where a common name is difficult to establish, or where two (or more) names have a reasonable claim to be a conventional usage in English. Using it to override the common name I'd be opposed to. Alai (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The order "Use common name; if no common name, use preferred name" seems sensible to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to think through the implications before deciding if it is a good idea, but even so "preferred name" is not sufficient as it does not define who's preferred name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

above, it is the nameholder's preferred name. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It must be said, that while that's probably relatively easy to discern for countries, large organisations, etc, it might be less obvious for individuals. I can all too readily envisage move discussions which proceed along the lines of, "s/he's a [Z]ian, obviously s/he prefers the correct [Z]ian script", "his/her English website uses a different spelling, with digraphs/without diacritics/etc", "obviously the work of the Anglophone technocracy and their inability to type correctly". Alai (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, Talk:Franjo Tuđman, where it is being argued that this guideline applies only to cities; and that the fact we say that there is dispute about German, Icelandic and Faroese names discriminates against Croatian. I shall be adding Franz Josef Strauss back to avoid the claim that this guidance applies only to cities or historic names. We should say the same things about German and Icelandic as about anything else; I propose to remove the poll from 2005, and the following sentence, and retitle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen about of that discussion as I can take for the time being, I'm afraid. I'd agree with the above changes; it's worth noting the disagreement over such matters in the context of "beware of sensitivities"/"avoid over-dramatising"/"stuff happens", but it's misleading if it's presented in such as way that could be read as being some sort of exception the established convention of using English (and the common name, and reliable sources). One might also question whether the three-year-old poll even covers cases like the above, where the presence or absence of diacritics requires an entirely different spelling. Perhaps the whole issue needs to be revisited by the community at large to see if consensus has changed, or is any clearer. Alai (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Septentrionalis and Alai that the reference to the vote can be removed since it does not elucidate anything about UE. Same goes for ßðþ. What kind of new title would you suggest, Septentrionalis? Jasy jatere (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put Modified letters, so we don't ignite the "What is a diacritic?" dispute. If anyone has a better idea, feel free; but do change WP:COMMONNAMES, which links here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(left)"Personal, organisation, and company names" are determined as follows

• Personal name - from the passport governed by the United Nations Convention Travel Document (UNCTD) which has replaced the 1951 Convention Travel Document for refugees.
• Organisation name - from its Constitution or Charter (assuming public)
• company name - from its incorporation by the state in which it is created via its legal advice per name registration process--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "are determined" in what sense? The above isn't our current convention, and nor does it appear to be what Jasy jatere is proposing. Alai (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The passports have to comply with the international convention. The international convention requires the name to be written in English in addition to the issuing country's language. The matter of the system of transliteration is left to the issuing country, but it has to be readable outside its own borders.

Organisational names also use English in their international dealings, such as business cards and internet cites. These are legal and copyrighted symbols of the organisation.

Companies need to use English because of the copyright and patent requirements by the WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. There are other similar organisations [1], but all use English as a second language.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the relevance of any of this. If someone's not commonly known by the name in their passport, we wouldn't use it at present, and if it's not their own preferred form of their name, we wouldn't use it under this suggestion, either. Are you mooting some further possibility, or are we simply talking at cross purposes? Alai (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how does one learn of a person's "preferred form of their name"? Usually from media or their solicitor, or PR representative. How does the media learn their name? Usually through research that uses the name in some official form: driver's licence application, application for directorship, authored publications, office holder titles, tax lodgements, etc. If you have a specific example, I can illustrate, but misuse of a person's name in media is a generally regarded as a big embarrassment to the writer/journalist, and they try not to do it by actually confirming the name spelling with the person. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out the difficulty with determining "preference" myself. But it would be a fairly systematic error to conflate "preferred" with "official". Let's not further digress onto "misuse", which sounds like another gigantic red herring just waiting to happen. Alai (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem is in defining "preferred". Consider Johnny Cash who preferred to be called J. R. as his parents named him. When he enlisted in the United States Air Force, the military would not accept initials as his name, so he adopted John R. Cash as his legal name. Then when signing with Sun Records in 1955, he took Johnny Cash as his stage name. His friends and in-laws generally called him John, while his blood relatives usually continued to call him J. R. In this case, Johnny is the preferred name, but this came from the individual himself, and was used for copyright purposes by the Sun Records, as well as being the name under which he traded as an artist (in artists Union), and one under which he had to declare his income taxes in addition to the income he may have declared as John R. Cash. One way or another anyone worthy of notability also acquire a name which is in some way their legal name for some purpose or other. Recently this has become known as "branding". A good example is in the case of Prince. Can a person have a preferred name which is not one that they are known for in claiming notability? Yes. I'm sure many notable people have personal preferences in how they are called by those close to them which is not used in public. However, usually names used in public, at least in modern times, are registered trading names, or subject to copyrights also, and lso those which make them notable to the general public.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify things, I am neutral wrt the inclusion of "preferred names" in UE, but I found it an interesting aspect. As far as Johnny Cash is concerned, he has a name commonly used to refer to him, "Johnny". This trumps everything else. Preferred names only enter the picture if the common name cannot be established, as maybe the case of Zoran Zigic. An example for a preferred name being used against other wp conventions is RMW Dixon (Please do not request a move for that one by the way).Jasy jatere (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A bot moved it, I hate to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dated stuff

Removed per above section: There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus.

There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð.

Do we need the business about í versus ī? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

one could try to establish who had problems with those letters and when. It might very well be that the technical issues leading to this dispute are obsolete by now, due to the widespread adoption of unicode. There are of course still some letters which do not display properly with all configurations, like ẅ (w with dieresis), but these are extremely unlikely to figure in the title of a page.

To cut it short, remove the section about í versus ī, because it is obsolete for all practical purposes. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We can always put it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is disagreement on whether the availability of a letter in common fonts should affect its use on Wikipedia - for example whether the letter í (i with acute) should have a different status from the letter ī (i with macron) because the former is more widely available.

[edit] Google tests

Please read WP:BIG and the following section. (They are about notability, but the reasoning applies here too: For some topics 183 total hits are indeed a lot.) The problem with 183:102 as google results is not that they are too small to establish notability or English usage, but that less than 2-1 is too close to be confident that this is not one of the systematic errors induced by depending on Google and the web in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GoodDay or the Croatians

Should we acknowledge the present state of play, more or less as follows:

Wikipedia often faces a conflict on using diacritics and other modified letters, between two views:

• Never use them because they're not English.
• Always use them because they would be correct in the local language.

We decide this dispute case by case, in each case doing whatever English normally does.

Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that 'whatever English normally does' therefore becomes a point of debate. Can I suggest the following...

Wikipedia often faces a conflict on using diacritics and other modified letters [?in article titles?] with views ranging from no use whatsoever of letters which do not form a standard part of English orthography, to always using the version preferred by the local language. Disputes should be decided on a case-by-case basis, with reference to the standard Wikipedia policies on verifiability and impartiality.

however I suspect that this is essentially saying nothing in a very verbose manner, and I don't think it adds much to the page. --Neo (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What English normally does is intended to make that the issue (we have ways of resolving that); the usual alternative is to have the issue be What's correct in Foolander?, shading into Racism against Fooland. See, if you can stomach it, Talk:Franjo Tuđman. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what purpose the new statement would serve. I fear it would needlessly force users into one of two camps, (pro-dia and anti-dia), a dualism we should strive to avoid.

Furthermore, it does not provide a solution to the problem, or any guideline. It merely says: decide on a case by case basis, which will leave people looking for information none the wiser, but will leave them with the idea that there are kind of two battling camps.

Finally, this policy is called "Use English", not "Use character set [xyzXYZ]", and I think we should get rid of most recommendations regarding character sets. Adopting the use of quality publications should do the same job and save us from these very emotional discussions. The case whether ö is a part of English in some kind of sense will never reach consensus, but the fact that Göttingen is the name normally used in English to refer to a certain city can reach consensus. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To add some positive contribution to the debate, how about

WP:UE does not imply that titles must (not)/may (not) be written in certain characters. WP:UE does imply that the general usage in English publications must be followed, whatever characters are/are not used there.

Jasy jatere (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec; I'm not a Croatian? GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to or. You are the local representative of one extreme view; they are the current instance of the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First clause needs to be unpacked, or it will be misquoted.

This guideline does not decide what the English alphabet is; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that some characters may not be used. Follow the general usage in English publications in each case, whatever characters are or are not used there.

How's that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it; but there's alot of pro-dios out there, who'll fight it. Also, there's conflicting Naming conventions out there. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Which conflicts? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Chinese), Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Swedish), Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Arabic), for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Two of those are {{historic}}. The only diacritics in pinyin Chinese (which very often is usage; it's what we mean by systematic transliteration for Mandarin) are the tone marks, which we do not appear to use for titles, and a good thing too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good job, PM! Jasy jatere (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see some potential of misreading the part "English usage determines English alphabet". People might say "there is an ë in Brontë, so it is part of the English alphabet, so it can also be used in Tiranë". This should be avoided. How about leaving out the part "; English usage does"?Jasy jatere (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But I like English usage does; it would mean I wouldn't have to say it as often. That's what in each case is for lower down. But each sentence should be self-contained so it can't be quoted out of context. I'll get back to it, unless you have another idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia does not decide which characters are used for an entity's name; English usage does? Might want to find a better word for "entity"...Jasy jatere (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

in the subject's name? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. Would this guideline call for Teemu Selänne be presented as Teemu Selanne? or for that matter Finnish/Swedish/Czeh etc place-names having their dios removed? GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on what general usage in English publications is. This squashes the anti-dio We must use the 26 English letters, and we may never use funny squiggles, as much as the pro-dio arguments. Are you prepared to settle for half a loaf? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

European-born NHL personel, have their names without dios, in a vast majority (if not all) of English publication. Certainly in NHL magazines, sports sections etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it would call for a move; and the last RM on Selanne did a fairly good job at showing that English doesn't in fact use diacritics there. Looking at the arguments, we may want to say something about best available sources; the case was made that newspaper usage doesn't count, because newspapers don't know Finnish

• Place names depend. If the local name is most used, this would accept it, diacritics and all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What I see as a problem here it is that no one of you wants to apply this rule at Kimi Räikkönen, Éamon de Valera, Lech Wałęsa, Carlos Moyà, Guillermo Cañas. For all of them English usage is not like title on Wikipedia. There are thousands of articles that do not follow this rule.

If you try to do that, then we would have another couple of guidelines that avoid this basic one, like we have now with NHL players or Irish names. And each rule with lots of exceptions is not a good rule. --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not so large if there is common English usage, because this guideline says use common English usage so names like Lech Wałęsa should be moved to Lech Walesa. Éamon de Valera is slightly different because it gets mixed up in national varieties of English (the use of Irish language accent marks are taught to all Irish children) and I see no harm in having a specific guideline for that country particularly as in this specific national case the spelling can have strong political undercurrents. The problems occur when there is no clear common usage in English I.E. the section "No established usage". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The length mark is taught to all Irish children because Irish is taught to all Irish children, of course. But I can confirm that in many cases, the Irish form of names is commonly in use in Hiberno-English, yes. In extreme cases, there basically is no English spelling: Sharon Ní Bheoláin, say. (She apparently gets quite offended if people ask her what the English version of her surname is, which seems a little precious to me, not so say somewhat sillily inconsistent, given that she's a native English speaker, and has an English first name, but no matter.) Now, this'll doubtless strike the Croatians et al as unacceptable special treatment, but the key thing is that we do have a clear convention for what to do about national varieties of English, ans PBS says. If we want to extend this to all languags, or even to all languages that use some version of the Latin script, that would a very signficant further step. Alai (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sniff sniff; the English Alphabet (with its beautiful 26 letters), never to have control over the English Language again. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything was ever in control of the English language, it should be charged with being DUI, recklessly negligent, or playing a huge prank on everyone that's been trying to spell it over the last 1000 years. Alai (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English usage in different kinds of media

I am opening a new section because the discussion seems to drift into that direction.

There's a compromise at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey and its 2-daughter WikiProjects, that's currently holding. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem of WP:UE is that different people are talked about by different media. Great novelists with diacritics are more likely to be referred to with their squiggles on their letters than their little brothers in hockey.

It appears to me that NHL/NBA/NFL/etc could not care less about the original spelling of their players, while NYT or BBC do care more about the spelling of the people they talk about (and they talk less often about professional sportsmen).

This implies that a person's name depends on who talks about him, which causes the inconsistencies noted above. It is an interesting point of discussion how to treat those inconsistencies. What if Terve Whätëvër becomes a novelist and people use the diacritics again? What if NYT uses Terve Whätëvër, but the mass of sports media use Terve Whatever?

I must say I tend towards some kind of elitism in this regard and would impute ignorance to sports journalists and go with the NYT. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is always a good sign that compromises can be reached, but this does not solve the general problem. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the Hockey articles, I think it's best to stick with the compromise that's being respected there. It helped stop many 'edit wars' & heated discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No established usage 2

I find this part of guideline a little bit funny. OK, we have established usage for tennis player Đoković so he should be Djokovic. But, for a singer Đoković, since he is still not popular in US, there is no established usage. So the singer's article should use Đoković. Right?

Or even more funny. If he becomes popular in US, we should change his article also. Right?

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have understood the guideline, and are right on both your observations (with the proviso that increased popularity in the US does indeed lead to the replacement of Đ by Dj). It is not the business of wp to unify English approaches to foreign names or to assure consistency within English usage. English usage is inconsistent, and there is nothing we can do about it but accept it Jasy jatere (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The only think is - wouldn't we only name the article Djokovic if he became famous as 'Djokovic' - that is if his album credited his name as 'Djokovic'. If he used 'Đoković' then we should continue to use this name, wouldn't we? --Neo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how other people refer to him. People would most likely use the name on the album, but wp is not a crystal ball. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consider as a parallel almost any German-American name, like Altmann. Some people bearing it are spelled Altmann, some are spelled Altman; yet it is always the same name (in some sense); in some of these cases, although not Altman, spelling differs within the same family. It is not our business to impose the "correct" German spelling, although that is clearly the double n. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the initial posting... IMO right about the tennis player, but wrong and wrong (your emphasis) about the singer. The question is, what would ...the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize... (WP:NC in a nutshell), and in that the name has had considerable exposure thanks to the tennis player, the singer's name is likely to be written without the diacritics too.

But yes, if it wasn't for the tennis player, the singer might well have their name written with diacritics for now, and it might change if they became well known. English changes, and so must we as it does, and one beauty of Wikipedia is that we can. In the same way, if Wikipedia had been started a couple of centuries ago, we'd probably now still be finding all sorts of old grammar to change (probably not too much thee and thou, but that sort of thing). This is not a problem, it's an integral part of the project. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this "Osmosis" from the tennis player to the musician is not a good idea. The fact that Jennifer Lopez has no ó does not imply that all other Lópezes should get rid of their acute, even if JL is the most popular among them Jasy jatere (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't necessarily happen that way. There can be some who spell their name Lopez and some López, just as there are some who spell their name Johnson, some Johnston, and even some Jonson.

But I think you're looking a bit deper than that, and you're entitled to these opinions. Whether Wikipedia is the place to promote them is another thing entirely.

Perhaps I should take a step back and ask you to clarify exactly what you mean by it being not a good idea. This could mean:

(1) that it's not the way you think English should work OR

(2) that you don't think that Wikipedia should follow English in this, even if it does work that way, OR

(3) that you don't think English works that way.

They're all valid opinions. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to promote (1) if that's what is happening. We follow English usage, and we don't attempt to correct it, and that's a very fundamental policy. IMO there's not a lot of chnace this will change, but a bit more chance if your opinion matches (2).

But in either of the first two cases, please be aware that what you are proposing is contrary to current policy. There are two ways forward. One is to invoke Wikipedia:ignore all rules, an even more fundamental policy, and try to get consensus here that Wikipedia would be improved by disregarding existing naming conventions in this case. Hopefully if you succeed in this then you or someone else will eventually get the rules changed to reflect this consensus. But there doesn't seem a lot of hope of doing that here.

The other way forward is even harder. It's to challenge existing policy, perhaps quoting this as an example, and try to get the rules changed. And that can work too, but it's not to be taken lightly.

Finally, if you think I'm wrong about the way English works, this is the place to discuss that. And I'm wrong sometimes, see User:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to get your point. I am not proposing anything, I just pointed out that tennis fans and music fans might use different spellings in English for two persons who are spelled the same in another language. Maybe that would fall under (3) in your list above? Anyway, the discussion is hypothetical since the singer is not popular yet (I think?), and we basically agree. Let's continue this discussion when the singer will have become popular Jasy jatere (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone have a problem with Sept's edit today?

I like it, a lot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copying conversation from WP:VPP

There was a lot of information relevant to current questions on this page. Discussion seems to have died down there now, so I'm copying it over. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about encyclopedias which ignore English usage?

A question arose at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:

It is the policy of the New Grove's to follow the original style wherever possible, including titles. To my mind, this puts them outside the purview of this guideline; they are not attesting English usage. (They may, in time, create it; but the question of whether they have done so must be answered somewhere else.) Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedians write Wikipedia, not New Grove's. Really I couldn't bother what rule the New Grove's dictionaries prefer. For Wikipedia that is a reality taking place outside of our boundaries (if you want to interfere then write to the authors of these dictionaries), and since New Grove's is not a composer of music either, that's what we call a "third party source". It so happens that New Grove's has a good reputation (whether I agree to that reputation would miss the point completely), so it has "WP:RS" written all over. And it is part of English usage.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) does not mention New Grove's - we're no slave to no-one.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) does mention two New Grove's's, but only with regard to capitalisation of foreign names - not for the choice between a foreign language name or an English name. It has been established that for French, New Grove's uses capitalisation rules different from those laid down by the Académie française (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (operas)#"If Grove is wrong . . ."). Sure, New Grove's is in English, and is not bound by rules established for the French language. Wikipedia has to follow neither: this is a choice only dictated by the nearest we can get to sound editorial judgement: if you want to change the choice, use Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (operas).
• Whether New Grove's creates or follows is none of our business. When it has created a habit (deliberately or unconsciously), there's no reason not to follow an established usage either, per our own current rules. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The question is, have they created a new habit, or are they just being strange? We need to check other sources to decide this. (Similarly, the DNB, old and new, always omits titles of nobility. We do not, because usage does not; the DNB is affectionately regarded as cranky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If you're still talking about follow the original style wherever possible, including titles, the question IS irrelevant, because Wikipedia doesn't follow New Grove's in that respect. Only if you would like to change a particular naming conventions in that respect (which would be quite pedantic, as Wikipedia's general naming conventions principles are different), this would possibly be one of the arguments. Then proceed with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (pieces of music) or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (operas), depending on where you propose to go through the movements of such exercise.
    • If you're talking about capitalisation, I suppose the exercise is even more moot. As far as I understand New Grove's applies English capitalisation rules to whatever the language of a title of a work: which is "use English". Did you want to change that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, it explicitly does not use, and says it does not use, English capitalization rules; English capitalization would be La Bohème (It is not clear that French would not be; Murger's play is La Vie de Bohème.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Nor is Grove's the only instance here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I therefore propose the following:

When using an encyclopedia, the naming policy of the encyclopedia itself should be taken into consideration. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does not use titles of nobility in naming its articles, following in this the practice of the DNB before it. Brill's New Pauly uses the orthography of its German original, rather than the forms in current use in English. Neither of these can attest English usage, although they may in time create it; whether they have done so (the ODNB has not) must be checked in other sources.

Comments on this text, now inserted as draft? Feel free to tweak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why the naming policy of our source should not be taken into consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what is unclear about "invites to original research". --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What original research? All three encyclopedias in question state their naming policies front and center. Saying that a source does what it says it does is not OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Investigating whether such naming policies establish English usage is OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosh. Introductions to encyclopedias are part of what they publish; we are relying upon our source, and its own interpretation of what it means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think possible Francis is taking issue with the fact that by saying 'x' doesn't reflect English usage then you are saying that one should never use 'x' as a source for a name, whereas perhaps a more subtle approach is sometimes called for, in which 'x' should not be consider to be an authority for naming, however where 'x' is the only source for a name it would be appropriate to use the name from 'x' (as an attested usage in English) rather than create a new name for the person or object involved. For instance a reference book of Vietnamese history may be the only English language source for the name of a given ruler from the 11th century, and we should possibly create the article about him at that location (not least because it satisfies the principle of least-surprise).

Apologies if I am misrepresenting his opinion. In any case hopefully this could be recognised as a valid argument in any case. --Neo (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I think Neo's position quite reasonable. Is the proposed text above inconsistent with it? (It doesn't say never, it says consider.) Would a sentence adding If the encyclopedia in question is itself a predominant source in English on some obscure subject, it is preferable to use its name than to invent one. resolve anything? (I never intended to suggest otherwise.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bunch of weaseliness, trying to discredit tertiary sources, exactly for the only type of referencing where they're brought to the foreground: determining what is English usage for article names.

FWIW, I see no necessity to highlight tertiary sources for this as it is done in the first parenthesis of the first sentence of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (highlighting mainstream newspapers would make as much sense as far as I can see). But don't *again* make a elaborate piece of bloat (in NC(N&T) style), first saying that a principle applies so-and-so, and then in the next paragraphs contradict it: in that case, better remove the "other encyclopedias" indication from the first sentence, if there's nothing else than "common names" as used in the English language.

Anyway, when an intro of an encyclopedia says their naming principles are so-and-so, the ORIGINAL RESEARCH would be to conclude from that whether or not they reflect English usage. Maybe English usage is closer to New Grove's than to other reference works when it comes down to capitalisation of opera titles. You're in no position to supersede that with original research, once the principle is adopted that encyclopedic reference works are an acceptable indicator for English usage per our guidelines and conventions.

Please explain DNB, I'm not familiar with the abbreviation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to the Dictionary of National Biography. I entirely agree with you. The weasel wording is unhelpful, contradictory and confusing. It is also original research to conclude from a dictionary's stated editorial style that it is not "English usage", i.e what Pmanderson's highly idiosyncratic view of English usage is. I also take exception to his continued misrepresentation of New Grove as some kind of 'maverick' and therefore to be viewed with skepticism.

We have repeatedly pointed out to him (see the link below), that New Grove uses the exact same style for rendering the titles of non-English works as the Chicago Manual of Style, Routledge, Viking Press, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Duke University Press, Yale University Library, University of California Press, University of Virginia Press etc. etc. It is also only one of the principal major English language reference works that the Opera Project uses.

In addition to the two Grove's, we use The Oxford Dictionary of Opera, The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera, The Viking Opera Guide, and the Cambridge Opera Handbooks. All of them use the same style for rendering foreign language titles as Grove. So does Opera America, the national service organization for American opera companies. It has an extensive outreach and education programme. Observe their list of the most frequently performed operas in America. [4] We mention Grove specifically, simply because it has the most comprehensive coverage of the area, including rarely performed works, and relatively less well known composers, singers and musicians. Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Opera Project's latest response to this issue see:[5]. Voceditenore (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extraordinary case

We should say something about the situation when the sources used are atypical; it can happen, and if we say nothing, we offer an opportunity to game the system. But I think, after Talk:Franjo Tuđman, that we should indicate that we should rely on the references unless a clear case can be made.

Intermediate wording may be best; but I can't think of it right now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make any specific point by removing "extraordinary case", we just generally avoid demonstrative language in style guidelines. In fact, you seem to be a champion of toning it down, so I was surprised to see the "extraordinary case" language. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, we need non-trivial language; but I seem to myself to be maintaining my usual position of actually requiring thought: Don't mechanically follow the references if English is against them; don't overrule in favor of Foobarian accuracy or a google result unless it's clear. But I would gladly accept more moderate language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to choose something. But you see my point, right? You know what you're saying, but someone else reading that might start inserting superlatives into guidelines whenever they feel strongly...not good. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put "occasionally happen", as the best alternative I can think of off-hand. Do by all means change this if you have reservations; I prefer either of these to nothing, but both are flawed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnifique. (Pretentious? Moi?) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Merci. (Nous.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] under development

Time to remove he templage "These guidelines are under development. Please discuss and improve." unless there are still any major outstanding issues. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The template can be removed now. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borderline case?

There is a very rare case under discussion at Talk:Снова в СССР: Sir Paul Macartney, an anglophone, intended and designed this album to be known in Cyrillic (despite the spelling mistake). I would still like Back in the USSR (album), but if there is a case to tweak always transliterate, this is it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's McCartney. If I could get him on the phone and ask him, it would make my day. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we already have an escape clause "Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form (a common anglicization) of the name" as in this unusual case it can be argued that it is in itself the common English form. Particularly if we revert this edit by Dbachmann made in the last 24 hours. "Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that PBS has gone ahead. I was divided on the matter: for one thing, anglicization is defensible for all cases except possibly this rare and special one. On the other hand, it may encourage use of "anglicized" forms where English transliterates but does not anglicize otherwise. (This would also be rare; but we don't want, for example, to be read as requiring Formosa.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritcs and this policy

By my understanding, a 2005 debate is about to resurrect itself for further wailing and gnashing of teeth. See WP:UD, a proposed policy that would substantially change the "Special characters" section of this page. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)