User:DankJae/sandbox/6

Talk proposal preparation

Implementing new official names, firstly Ceredigion?
Hi all, should we give recognition to new "official names" (recognised by both the government's WLC and local council) in a lead of an article? Or just the body. I believe so as it is likely the "official name" would be added anyway but more likely with removing the previous name, leading to inconsistencies between title and lead. Giving incorrect primacy to WP:OFFICIALNAMES really, although many of these would likely be quickly adopted to justify moves, but not blanketly.

A few years ago the Welsh Language Commissioner published a list of standardised Welsh place-names in Ceredigion, where they recommended certain place-names, particularly in Welsh, although sometimes also in English, to use. Since the list was made, Ceredigion County Council have announced they now recognise them, therefore kinda means there are new "official names" for many places in Ceredigion, which probably should be mentioned in the articles somehow? There have possibly been attempts already, maybe leading to inconsistencies between leads and titles, or the full removal of the former form(s). I propose:


 * The official name should be mentioned in both body and lead (lede). Unless only body?
 * To use the format below, basically "officially PLACE" and others. Unless alternatives?
 * As Infobox UK place uses  for the top name, these should be used. Unless not?
 * This becomes a guideline for all counties when/if their councils recognise (or seem to recognise) the list. Or should each individual county be discussed here first?

This is not for article titles themselves, per WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Just the leads, the titles are a separate matter. Although I may look at each name to see if a RM is needed at some point.


 * Alternate official English name

No one format, should follow any page move, so "or" "also known as" "previously" "formerly" etc. can all be used.
 * Alternate official English name becomes more accepted than the previous name (so when use changes in preference for the official form)


 * Alternate Welsh official name


 * Welsh Official name becomes more accepted than the previous Welsh name (so when use changes in preference for the official form)


 * Official Welsh name already used; Alternate Welsh name


 * Official English name already used; Alternate English name


 * Official Welsh name already used; Alternate English name

If there is another context I missed, please raise!

Above are the list of new leads, trying to experiment a consistent format. If there are errors please correct/raise.

I did consider applying this to all standardised names, however limited to only those clearly recognised by the council, as I find them to be the ultimate authority on what name is signposted. Unless, all councils have privately accepted them? Monmouthshire cited the list when defending not using Y Dyfawden, but idk if it is for all of their names, or Monmouthshire just never added the (former) Welsh name? Nonetheless, the format for Ceredigion should set a basis for the others, should their councils adopt them. The main change I am arguing here is using "officially", and "official form" and the prominence in leads, other alternative names can be reworded in the lead to fit the context.

If there are no comments, would boldly apply (only "official" ones) a month after raising this.

Discussion
Add comments below. Thanks

Tautological names
Should Wales adopt a similar naming convention as ENGLANDPLACE, where tautological names there such as Lincoln, Lincolnshire and Worcester, Worcestershire, were replaced with Lincoln, England, and Worcester, England, based on the argument that if a settlement is repeated in its disambiguator tag, that it is not really helpful to readers and tautological? That it basicallly means "Place, Placecounty".

Such possible NC/guideline may be worded as:

This proposal would only really impact the following:
 * Flint, Flint shire Flint, Wales
 * Pembroke, Pembroke shire Pembroke, Wales

And the following should they no longer be considered primary:
 * Monmouth, Monmouth shire Monmouth, Wales

It basically already applies to Newport, Wales, which would've been Newport, Newport* but that is a more extreme example, while those above are using derivatives. In the end the main argument is "Pembroke is in Pembroke[shire]" seems very self-evident and not beneficial and therefore these specific cases should be avoided. Based on this wording, it wouldn't apply to Cardigan, Ceredigion as the former is actually derived from the latter, even though I'd personally prefer Cardigan, Wales because both names are related. It is NOT to be applied to all settlements in Wales, which should at the highest use the principal area for disambiguation, so other places in Pembrokeshire and Flintshire should continue using "Pembrokeshire" and "Flintshire" in their titles.

This name convention would need to precede any RMs to provide arguments for, otherwise it would just be personal preference. Even if it only applies to two articles, a NC ideally would help make it more justified.

Tautological leads
Proposed guidelines for when "railway station" in a title, isn't needed for the lead.

Guideline on only using the Welsh pronunciation
Should the following be implemented as a project guideline:

This assumes that there are no "set English pronunciations" (in MOS:DUALPRON) for Welsh names, but all are mispronunciations that should not be in any article. This means most articles will have "one correct pronunciation".