Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ambiguous adjectives)

Currently Naming conventions (adjectives) states that article names should be at nouns, rather than at adjectives. In mathematics articles, this usually involves a noun like Bounded set in preference to an adjective like Bounded. However, adjectives like these often become perfect candidates for disambiguation pages -- as in this example. So the naming convention would require these to be at nouns, like Boundedness, that are rarely used (although they do exist). So some people (principally, I think, Oleg Alexandrov, but not only Oleg) think that these should be at adjective instead. This might apply outside mathematics (and anyway, some of these adjectives are used both inside and outside mathematics). There is already discussion on this matter at Talk:Boundedness (or Talk:Bounded, wherever it ends up); official naming convention discussion should probably be here. -- Toby Bartels 08:32, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this discussion just be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (adjectives)? That's the policy it's being proposed to change, after all.  Alai 22:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In the past, people have created discussion pages for proposed policies (including naming conventions) to discuss them, then created the policy page afterwards; an example is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (theorems). Maybe we no longer do that, but instead discuss changes on the most relevant existing page? If you want to move this stuff over there, I won't object! -- Toby Bartels 00:06, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
 * If you specifically want to create a separate policy, then yes. But it seems a lot more logical to simply amend the existing 'adjectives' policy, since it's in effect simply an exception to it, as I understand it.  Alai 00:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)