Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 15

How to rename a page
I think "How to rename a page" should stay were it is. People come to this page to see what sort of name to give an article, and I think that: should appear clearly at the start of the article.
 * the type of name
 * redirects
 * and how to rename a page

The simplest way to keep instructions on "How to rename a page" easily accessible for editors not familiar with this page is to place the information in the TOC near the top. Equally if it is in a section near the top, it does not clutter up the lead with what can be non important information if an editor has come to this page because they want to find out how to name a page, not to rename one. --PBS (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's leave it for now; it would have to be repositioned if the proposal below is adopted anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (By "leave it" I meant move it back to where it was, if you so want.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Other specific conventions and guidelines
From the history of the article:
 * 03:47, 30 August 2009 M (47,112 bytes) (→Other specific conventions: start of cleanup and turning this into a usable index)
 * 04:34, 30 August 2009 Cygnis insignis m (47,145 bytes) (→Other specific conventions: Minor change to a large and untidy edit, which should be reviewed or reverted)
 * 11:13, 30 August 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (→Other specific conventions: Make it clear that there are guidelines here as well as conventions) (rollback | undo)

user:M you made this change which reduced the size of the convention from (49,601 bytes) to (47,145 bytes). I agree with Cygnis insignis please explain the changes you have made here, not so much the re-arrangement, but any deletions or additions that you have made. --PBS (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 17:09, 30 August 2009 Cygnis insignis (talk | contribs) (49,601 bytes) (Reverted to revision 310774383 by Cosmic Latte; Revert unfinished edit by User:M.

The only deletion and addition was of the flora and fauna section. The flora and fauna guidelines are highly redundant - I merged these as per WP:PG, and moved the lead there. It seems that the only potential reasons for undoing substantial work are "Revert changes made without discussion" (this is absolutely not a valid reason), 'you didn't finish it' (ok, finish it yourself instead of reverting), a 'widowing' of discussion (which is incorrect), and unverified suspicions that something was removed (see diffs). I'll be continuing my cleanup - for now, I'll replace the lead into this policy, but if nobody can provide good reasons not to merge those two pages, I'll do that again.   M   19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would have seemed to me that a perusal of the talk pages of those two articles would provide plenty of reasons why a merger would be controversial.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are these reasons? The guidelines themselves would not be merged, they would reside on the same page as seen here. Both camps could then determine exactly where the conventions for flora and fauna differ - though a fair bit seems to be the same, in some cases seemingly copy-pasted over.    M   20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you have not read the flora guideline talk pages! --PBS (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have. Please don't say "oh, go spend a few hours reading those pages, the reason is in there somewhere". It's up to you to provide the reason, not up to me to go searching through WiP for it.    M   22:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

<-- I have reverted to the version by user:M

I have looked through the changes that user:M has made as of this edit and AFAICT they are acceptable. But before they are implemented I would like to see if there are any objections to them. user:M this is a project page, and before major changes are made you should check that the changes have consensus. Before you make any more changes please allow people to catch up with your proposed changes and agree to them. Now that flora and forna are back as they were, have you made any other changes to the page, other than reordering things? --PBS (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from the reordering, no. I'll be checking this with an advanced diff after I get some more cleanup done. I'm unsure why it would be easier for people to catch up with changes if those changes are reverted - more likely, they will simply be ignored until implemented. (This waiting for a number of people to ratify a proposal and then the implementation of that proposal seems needlessly bureaucratic. People can easily catch up by looking at diffs, which is how things usually work.)    M   21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

From my talk page
 * The policy on such changes is that while disagreement on the talk page should prevent further changes, a lack of agreement does not. Agreement is not required, and silence and the absence of reasoned objections implies consent. Do you have an objection to the changes? If so, please provide it on the talk page or in your edit summary. I hope that we agree that "you didn't get permission" is not a valid objection. If you have no objections, I'll resume cleanup shortly.    M   21:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is disagreement and you are making very big changes. Now you may only be rearanging the deck chairs, or you may be doing other things. One think is for sure, messing with flora was a mistake. Because the diffs are very large it is difficult to see what you have done, hence my question to you. As two editor reverted your edits, you have been asked some specific questions on this page, which you have stated has not made any other differences, but you are not allowing time for other editors to review what you have already done, before piling on other changes. As such you are editing without a consensus for the change and you have not discussed the changes you want to make other than in the most general terms, before making them. So before you make any more changes make sure to answer the questions put to you and wait to give others a chance to review what you have done already. In principle I am not against the page being tided up, but as can be seen in the next section you are now suggesting major changes to the core of the policy and that is another ball game. --PBS (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If I make change A, and then you do review X, and then I make change B, and you do review Y, how is this any different from me making changes A and B and then you doing review X and Y? In terms of time and complexity, there isn't. Again, I don't need "consensus" (permission) to make a change. I need only to have some objections. As long as these are being provided, I am fine. I think I have addressed all of your objections. Would you like me to reimplement the changes in a way that provides you with a better diff?    M   21:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is much to be gained by taking a new look at the flora and fauna guidelines, and I don't rule out a universe in which they can be combined. Nevertheless, debate, especially on the flora side, but also to some extent with fauna, has been highly polarized. M, the one thing you have accomplished is to unite the two sides of the debate against you, because none of us want to see the tenuously-balanced Malus domestica cart upset. I assume that is not your goal. I think it would be highly worthwhile for you to familiarize yourself with the debate, and with the players, because at this point any successful revision will be 80% politics and 20% new ideas.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to combine them, I intend to put them on the same page: 'flora and fauna', see here. Do some parts of them not overlap?    M   21:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Another point user:M you are removing lots of section headers, have you checked to see if any redirects or guidelines have links to those section headers that you are deleting? -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just M is fine. I gave consideration to this before starting, and this is not a problem - these are easily provided with tags.     M   22:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The summary was "turning this into a usable index", but it removed the indexing by the TOC. My rationale was perhaps too polite, and discrete, the summary when I added the diff above was "Reverted, made a confusing page worse". This was only half done, and I don't think it should be done at all; section headers are linkable and conventional, an arcane work-around with span ids and the ";" list coding is redundant - highly redundant even. Discussion of other pages should start on those talk pages, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna). cygnis insignis 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redundant with what? And I'm not sure I understand, you think that the pages should be indexed both by the ToC, and as a bunch of headings? <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   23:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redundant to the level three headers I restored. The TOC directs the reader to specific guidance and the subsections are linked from elsewhere, it made the very long page less useful. The TOC subsections gave a list, where the editor would find plant listed under A for Animal.
 * @PBS: Your last revert was to your previous edit, which reverted to the above, but it has not restored these subsection headings. cygnis insignis 00:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is called an index. A table of contents is not an index. And I'm sure you mean something else when you say plants are listed under animals. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   02:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you might like to call it, the page is decidedly less useful if the TOC does not provide direct links to the specific sections. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked PBS to restore them, removal obviously reduces the utility of the page. cygnis insignis 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained on your talk page, I did not remove them. User:M did. But as there is some confusion over this issue I have reverted M's changes to the section. --PBS (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge first two sections
As I've said already, the first two sections ("Use the most easily recognized name" and "Use common names...") effectively duplicate each other, and ought to be combined into one. This is my proposal for doing so: draft diff. It isn't intended to change anything materially, just simplify and eliminate duplicated wording (all the stuff about disambiguation, for example, is dealt with in the section immediately following, so doesn't need to be repeated here). The only real "change" of substance is my suggestion to add "largely" in the sentence "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what reliable sources call the subject"; this takes account of the facts that (a) at present the section on common names doesn't mention reliable sources; (b) in practice, unrestricted Google searches are not entirely discounted in naming discussions.

Thoughts please.--Kotniski (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay by me, though the stuff on redirects probably doesn't belong in that section. Hesperian 14:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that too. In fact what we probably need (and what was probably originally the intention of the current first section) is an introductory section making these general points about redirects, about where the renaming process takes place, generally about how the naming convention pages are structured and purposed. Then go on to the actual rules about naming. --Kotniski (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hesperian 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse. The on-going dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict, shows that the use of the word "largely" could easily be taken out of context as has happened more than once with the word "Generally". Before we consider re-arranging this policy, perhaps instead we should re-consider renaming it (see /Archive 11#Requested move or if that is not possible adding to this policy page (as is done in WP:V) the wording of WP:Policies and guidelines " Policies have This policy has wide acceptance among editors ..." PBS (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to me an unrelated proposal rather than a counter-proposal. If you want to do this other thing, start a separate discussion about it. Do you object to this proposal? Hesperian 13:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No they are not unrelated. At the moment "Use the most easily recognized name" is a stand alone Section. It is clear and apart from the use of "Generally" which causes some problems, it does not have the problems that some other parts of this policy has. In the section that is proposed there is the line "Rationale and specifics: Naming conventions (common names)" are those "Rationale and specifics" part of policy or a guideline? I think that until the article is renamed to make this clear (or a specific sentence is added making it clear), combining these sections with this line, will make it more difficult to keep the two clear cut. --PBS (talk)
 * What do you mean? These "rationale and specifics" lines (including that one) are in the policy already. Sure it's confusing, but that confusion is not affected by this proposal. We either have to go one step at a time (thus leaving a certain amount of confusion at each stage) or try and tidy the whole thing up in one go (which would doubtless be reverted as "making major changes to policy without consensus").--Kotniski (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about the merge... here's why. Referring to the same reliable sources for determining how well recognized a name for the general reader is, or how commonly used it is, as we use to establish basis for article content makes no sense. That "clarification" was added within the last year or so. I think it should be removed, and merging these two sections might make that more difficult.

For example, a peer-reviewed academic source is great for citing article content, even if it is virtually unknown to the general public. However, the names such a work uses to refer to subjects is not helpful to us in terms of determining recognizability for the general reader, especially if usage in it conflicts with usage that is more accessible and probably more accurately reflects usage among the general audience (like popular magazines, newspapers, and, yes, even blogs). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This too seems to be unrelated to my proposal. I just want to tidy things up, not change the effective meaning. It currently says in one place that we determine recognizability using reliable sources. It also fails to say anything to that effect in another place (the common name section) where we would expect to see it if it were true. So let's compromise by saying "largely" or "principally" or something for now - when we can actually see what we've got written, instead of a contradictory mess, we can start to work out whether the substance needs to be changed.--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still hesitant. Right now, Use the most easily recognized name stands out at the uppermost level - the primary guideline of this policy if you will.  The rest, as I read it, is, or should be, clarification on what exactly that means in various contexts, and I think that would be lost, if I understand your proposal.  If you could show how the whole page would look after your proposal was applied, that would help.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Both sections seem to be saying the same thing; they should be merged and knitted together so it's easier for editors to make sense of them. Tony   (talk)  02:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (@B2C) What is being lost? What I see now is not clarification, quite the reverse - there are various bits of text which you would expect to relate to each other in some way, but don't. I'll do what you suggest and show what the page might look like after this change is made. Someone will no doubt revert it, but at least the diff will be there.--Kotniski (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Just maybe no-one will revert and we'll be able to work on this (IMO) clearer version to make other necessary improvements.--Kotniski (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski I have reverted your changes. At the moment the discussions on in this section has not reached a conclusion. You write "What do you mean? These "rationale and specifics" lines (including that one) are in the policy already." yes they are but the explain common name section they do not explain "Use the most easily recognized name" which is self contained and there is no possibility of someone misunderstanding and saying "But the guideline linked in the line "Rationale and specifics" says, and arguing that the wording of the guideline means that the policy is being misunderstood. -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * diff

I could live with the merging of the two sections if (as I said above we either include a specific line which notes that policy takes precedence over the naming convention guidelines, or we rename this page. I know that user:Hesperian would almost certainly object to the line in the policy to make the relationship between policy and guidelines clear, because he has his own position to uphold at WP:NC (flora), so perhaps we should look again at renaming this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But I put in such a specific line (..."but this page takes precedence over those.") Why did you revert the whole set of improvements just because of this one objection, which is answered by the new text anyway. I'm going to re-revert - please think about what you're doing and only revert things that actually make the situation worse for some reason. (And one person's objections to making something clear can't be allowed to hold up the process for everyone else - let him speak for himself anyway. I would support renaming this page, but not for the reason you state - the relation between policy and guidelines is already as clear as it can be due to this page's being marked as policy and the others not.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say that Kotniski is one of our most experienced and trusted editors, with a significant track-record of improving guidelines. I don't quite see why his efforts are being met with blanket reverts; the post by Shearer above does not appear to present a substantive case against Kotniski's edit, but seems to be tangential or even irrelevant to it. Tony   (talk)  12:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit tag
I have added the tag because—as far as I can see—the entire page needs a language overhaul. Wherever I look, there is something to query, something that makes it hard to understand; yet editors deserve to be able to understand this policy as easily as possible.

For example, I glanced at a recent edit, of "Overview". There's a significant problem of logic:

"This page sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to name articles. It is supplemented by naming guidelines. Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)."

Now, surely a guideline must do more than appear to conflict with the policy for there to be something to resolve; otherwise, it's a matter of internal resolution within the guideline. It needs to be reworded thus: "Where a naming guideline conflicts with this policy,...", surely? Tony  (talk)  14:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording may or may not be the best but it is taken from Policies and guidelines and it seems to me better to keep close to the words in that policy. -- PBS (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the linguistic aspects are particularly bad. What I find confusing about this page is that it keeps referring off to other pages ("Naming conventions (common names)" and so on) on quite general matters, and sometimes on specific topic areas, while a whole list of details on other specific topics appear directly on this page. I would have thought that if there is too much information to fit on one page (as there undoubtedly is), then it should be the specific topics that get moved off first, and the general principles only if it's still too long.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what is the rhyme or reason as to whether specifics appear on this page or are linked to elsewhere? Is it historical? Most confusing for readers. Tony   (talk)  14:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In cases like Use English, there is a specific short convention in the policy and more general guidance in the guideline, which I think is desirable and should be repeated in other areas. The general mix is simply because this document has evolved over seven years and like every other page on Wikipeia it is a mix. I do think however as there have been considerable changes to the page in the last few hours, and before any more are made we should wait for 24 hours and see if there is a general consensus for them, before more changes are made. -- PBS (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

recent changes
I agree with Kotniski that the location of the advice on remaning articles was unsatisfactory.

Philip Baird Shearer's justification (edit summary) for partially reinstating Anderson's attempt to downgrade the mention of MoS appears to be part of his objection to anything on the subject at MoS (see MoS talk page). The issue about "also" appears to be totally irrelevant. Please come up with a better reason here first. Tony  (talk)  14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I put back the version that has been here for months. If you think the reason for also is totally irrelevant why remove it? -- PBS (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you think the reason for also is totally irrelevant why remove it?" I did remove "also", because it is, as I said, totally irrelevant. Please state here why you believe a WP style guide should be placed second to some article. It seems like a case of trying to force your own view of en dashes, as you have been doing at MoS talk. Tony   (talk)  00:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No I have not been trying to force any opinions on dashes. Quite the contrary, I don't want to force their use on anyone. What I do want to do is to make sure that Manual of Style guidelines are not mixed up in the Naming conventions. There is enough confusion with the guidelines to the Naming conventions without opening up a whole new vista. However this is a point I have made in the section and I suggest that we carry on the consensus building exercise there and not in two places at once. --PBS (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the opening, which was repetitive. Can I remind users that policy and style-guide pages need to get their point across in as little text as possible, and that the messages should aim to be plain, straight and simple.

This is not the case, for example, in these two prominent passages:

"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 articles easy and second nature."

Newbie editors should not be flummoxed; whereas I am. What is a reasonable minimum of ambiguity? What is "reasonable"? Why, a newbie might ask, should there be ambiguity at all? Is it referring to the scenario where redirect pages are required? If so, can it be more explicit, and possibly provide a brief example? Why "easy and'' "second nature"?

"Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

This sentence is ambiguous; I read it the wrong way first. "Seeing" is rather loose ("determining"?): does it mean "how ... refer to the topic"? Tony  (talk)  00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reasonable" is a word frequently used in common law and is understood, by most English speaking people from that context. As to the rest is that not what the conventions and guidelines seek to explain? -- PBS (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one cares what is used in common law: at issue here is whether the word adds anything to the meaning. Please identify what is lost if it is removed. As for the rest, have you read my posts above? Tony   (talk)  01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasonableness would be lost. If you mean the posts in the section yes, but as this seems to be predominantly about another topic why not keep further comments about the MOS inclusion to that section? --PBS (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um ... what is wrong with "with a minimum of ambiguity"? Tony   (talk)  02:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" and "minimum of ambiguity", the former means that some ambiguity is tolerable the latter not. --PBS (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For example "minimum of ambiguity" could be read that in no cases should we have a main topic for an article with a hat-note on top as that is ambiguous. The other way it would effect many articles such as those currently under in NC (names and titles) and WP:NC (ships) where the name could be pared down because the name given is not one with a minimum of ambiguity, so for example William Grosvenor would be the only person on the page Duke of Westminster who was not under their title. It would seem better to keep the phrase "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" to cover both these issues. -- PBS (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless good reasons are provided, I'll make these changes. On another matter, there is reference to "native" forms under "Use English words". Does "native" mean "foreign"? "Native" is an ambiguous word in this context. Tony   (talk)  02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see this as a "Yes and No" -- as shown in the examples -- it can be a native name that is also used in English, which means that it is not foreign word. If however the native spelling is not used in English then it is a foreign word. --PBS (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thoroughly confused, and so will almost all readers be. Can the wording be more explicit? Can you talk in the terms you've used in the post here? Do you mean "foreign words that have been adopted into English"? The sentence should be easy to comprehend. Tony   (talk)  12:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've recast the Use English section to remove all references to "native" - hopefully that will resolve the difficulty. About "with a (resonable) minimum of ambiguity", I would remove that phrase altogether (from the section it's in at the moment). It would belong under the "be precise when necessary" section - we don't want to keep repeating everything everywhere.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shearer, sorry, Kotniski's version is correct, and your reversion is wrong, in grammatical terms.

- 	Convention: Name pages in English unless a foreign form of the name is more recognizable by English-speaking readers.

"Convention: Name pages in English unless a foreign form of a name is more recognizable to English-speaking readers."

It is the two words you have reverted that are wrong. Now, this blind reverting has to stop. If you object to a change, made by an experienced and skilled editor, not some fly-by newbie or vandal, then raise the matter here. Otherwise, people might think there are WP:OWNERSHIP problems on this page. Please self-revert. Tony  (talk)  13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a blind revert, as I did it with my eyes open ;) I made what I consider to be the minimum changes. "a name" because an entity can have more than one name (but I agree on re-reading it that "the name" is clearer within the current sentence, (although not strictly correct as there can be more than one name). As for the second change I wanted to make a bigger change but was trying to keep it to a minimum. I would like to replace "is more reconisable by/to" with "has greater recognition by". So the sentence would then read


 * "Convention: Name pages in English unless a foreign form of the name has greater recognition by English-speaking readers."
 * --PBS (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Query: "The policy is supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy, which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." Perhaps I should be able to see it, but can someone explain why NOR is relevant to article naming? Tony  (talk)  14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not particularly relevant, but as all three content policies should be interpreted with regards to each other and not in isolation, so no harm is done mentioning it and it may be useful. --PBS (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What about "greater recognition by" ? --PBS (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "greater recognition by" sounds better, Philip. What does Kotniski think?
 * "The", in fact, is better before "foreign" ("the foreign form of a name"). BTW, the title there is uncomfortable: "Use English words" ... but it immediately countenances the use of foreign words under a specific circumstance. I don't know how to fix this.
 * I noticed "... set out in detail how that objective is achieved. This page sets out Wikipedia's policy ...". This unfortunate repetition might have to wait until the "Overview" section is reassessed as a whole. Tony   (talk)  15:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I beg to differ: if NOR is not particularly relevant, readers should not be told it is. The shorter the better: this is a very long document, and rather inaccessible in my view. Tony   (talk)  15:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to "greater recognition by". About NOR - I guess it might come up in cases where people try to solve problems by making things up ("hey, why don't we call the country 'Ire-Land'?"), although it doesn't seem to stop them giving decidedly innovative names to monarchs.--Kotniski (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Be precise when necessary
The following statement is currently in the Be precise when necessary section, which is supposed to apply to names of articles whose most common name is primary for some other topic:


 * If alternative common names exist for a topic, using them may be the simplest way to disambiguate; if not, add a disambiguator in parentheses.

A beneficial feature of Wikipedia is that, for the most part, the title of a given article declares the name most commonly used to refer to the topic of that article. If an article title is disambiguated with a disambiguator in parenthesis, that benefit is still achieved. However, if we use another less common name for the title in order to disambiguate, then the benefit is lost. Perhaps we could change the above to the following:


 * If an alternative common name exists for a topic that is as commonly used to refer to the topic, using it may be the simplest way to disambiguate; if not, add a disambiguator in parentheses.

--Born2cycle (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess there's a balance to be struck; in some cases we might use a somewhat less common name (though still reasonably common) to achieve disambiguation; thus mirroring the way disambiguation is achieved in real life. For example, New York City might be a less common name for the city than "New York" (I don't know), but we would still prefer it to "New York (city)" or "New York, New York".--Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Now, how to clearly say that in words?  How about...


 * When an alternative common name exists for a topic that is somewhat less commonly used than the most common name (though still reasonably common), using the alternative may be the preferred way to disambiguate; if not, add a disambiguator to the most common name in parentheses.


 * --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to this. I support, and I believe there is very strong consensus amongst WP:PLANTS people for, the practice of resolving ambiguity in plant common names by recourse to scientific names; e.g. . I don't want to see this convention redefined in a way that would make this sensible practice controversial. Hesperian 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a case of WP:BEANS! I am very tempted to move it back as you must have known that given the comments on talk page (Talk:Wineberry (New Zealand) which you did not move) and the previous move back, that there is no obvious consensus for the move, why did you not put it up for a WP:RM as you know that NC common and NC flora contradict each other? --PBS (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of that the previous move was disputed, not having checked the talk page. I checked the history, and saw a mess of moves involving the ludicrous title Aristotelia serrata (New Zealand). These moves were made before we had a flora naming convention. The flora naming convention is now long-established, and my move was, I believe, uncontroversial. You are, of course, at liberty to move it back. Note, however, that this would be pointless procedural wonkery, since the Google test indicates a great deal more hits for "Aristotelia serrata" than "Wineberry", despite the count for the ambiguous latter containing numerous hits (apparently the majority) for Rubus phoenicolasius. It is indisputable that the scientific name is more commonly used than the vernacular name in this case, and if you add to that the fact that the common name is ambiguous with no primary use, it is impossible to make a case for the opposition. Hesperian 11:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME cannot contradict NC flora, because it explicitly says (at WP:UCN) to use the most common name, unless another naming convention indicates otherwise. Specific agreements that have obtained consensus supersede broad principles. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This identifies a problem with the recent merge. Prior to the merge, there was no such limitation on "Use the most easily recognized name".  That is, "Use the most easily recognized name" was policy, regardless of what more specific guideline might say.  Now, that part of the policy is linked to WP:COMMONNAME, which, as you note, is limited by unless another naming convention indicates otherwise.  That's a fundamental and an unacceptable change.  Unless someone figure out how to fix this, I think this is grounds to revert the merge.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as related to any recent merge. I've been working in RM for years, and it's been the practice there for years that specific naming conventions supersede the general rule to use common names. Far from "unacceptable", I see it as a Good Thing, and an instance of consensus in action. There are considerations such as consistency among similar articles that absolutely should take precedence over a blanket "rule" to use the most common name in each case. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle's view that the general convention supersedes specific conventions was dispelled a few short months ago; see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 13. Hesperian 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument is also raging at Naming conflict where a group are trying to reverse the long-standing guidance without consensus on the same bogus argument of "contradiction." I have just reverted a change PBS has made to this policy to aid his position in that dispute.   Xan  dar   23:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted the following added sentence that goes against the consensus decision posted by Hesperian above, namely "Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Policies and guidelines)."   Xan  dar   23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Use common names of persons and things
This has been removed from the policy
 * Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

There is now no mention of using common names in the policy. The convention (possibly modified) probably needs to be put back into the policy page. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll go and post a request at WP:RM for this to be moved to WP:Naming contentions. — cygnis insignis 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this substantial and non-consensus change to policy, which seems to have been made to influence the outcome of the struggle on the non-consensus changes that PBS, M, and others are currently trying to push through on the WP:Naming conflict page. The change to policy would remove the important exceptions provided by the Naming Conventions, and specifically removes the link to WPNaming conflict.   Xan  dar   23:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Naming conflict is still linked to, under the section "Controversial names", which seems to be the most appropriate place.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes the link is there but the wording in no longer in the convention, instead it is relegated to a guideline, I think "common name" must be in the policy. --PBS (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's another issue; I was talking about the link to Naming conflict. Do you think "common name" is different from "what reliable sources call the subject"? If so, we have another clash of ideas to resolve.--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not neccesserily but in which case we need to define common name "what reliable sources call the subject" (or whatever) because common name is used throughout the policy and guidelines. But see my comment in the Draft section. This is all happening too fast. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've again restored the first section of the sentence above, up to the first comma, the removcal of which would be a very significant policy change, negating much of the array of existing naming conventions.  Xan  dar   10:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft version
This policy page is starting to get very unstable. There are several competing long standing points of view that are not going to be resolved quickly.

I strongly suggest that we go back to the version as it has been for may months, and move the latest into Naming conventions/Draft so that the interested parties (I include myself in that list) can find wording that we all can live with.

The version I suggest going back to is 17:09, 30 August 2009 With two additions:
 * add into that one the Polish convention.
 * and revert out the alteration that Pmanderson made to dashes sentence.

--PBS (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that that is a stable and fair target to revert to, but I'm opposed in general to the apparent impossibility of making any progress whatsoever on this page. Must we always keep going back? Hesperian 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see any need to go back to an inferior version. Progress is being made here - if people object to any change, they can say what and why.--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way was it inferior? It was stable and largely had consensus. These rapid changes show that there currently is not consensus. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think the reason it was "stable" was because any attempt to improve it was knocked down, as you seem to want to do with the current attempt. The main thrust of the changes has been simple presentational improvement that no-one is objecting to, and it would be unhelpful to lose that just because of a few quibbles over wording. --Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a few quibbles over wording. There are fundamental differences, and although we may be able to resolve them in a draft version we will not solve them by edit warring, on a policy page. I have explained to you my current concerns "I could live with the merging of the two sections..." and in the same posting warned another would disagree. Now it may be possible that in a draft, like a Rubik's Cube we can slot all the bits into place but we are not going to do it when everyone feels under pressure and threat that at any moment the version of the current policy is as they see it harmful to the project. Your main objective seems to be to merge sections because you think it will bring clarity to the page. It is doing that, but it is also opening up lesions because the older wording is a compromise and has some ambiguity. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to clean up this page up and make it more precise and clear, but I knew that it would cause the sorts of problems that have appeared, because we are now arguing over several issues simultaneously that have not been solved in over a year of debate on them as individual issues. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I for one predicted that Hesperian would object to the inclusion of "Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)" and without that clause I object to the combining of the previously separate paragraphs, because it weakens the policy in the ways I described. Now I know that Born2cycle has problems with the use of reliable sources and that Xandar has problems with the change of wording. So I strongly suggest that we go back to a stable version and move the changes to Draft. where we can see if we can come up with a solution that pleases no one but is a working compromise that we can call a consensus. This is a very important policy page and it is not good for Wikipedia to have its core principles in a state of flux, with only a dozen editors participating in the debate.


 * If we go back to the earlier version, which presumably was acceptable (even if not all the aspects were liked by everyone it was a compromise that we can call a consensus). All of us in this debate and edit frenzy can debate the changes calmly and stop disrupting Wikipedia by created an unstable policy page through lots of small edits. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the version you want to revert to was a novel edit, I most certainly would not consider it "acceptable". The only reason I grudgingly accept it is because it has the status of an articulation of a previous consensus.
 * Kotniski has restored the sentence I objected to above, and I shall leave it there for now. You stated above that "without that clause I object". Now that the clause has been restored, can we let this stick for now?
 * Hesperian 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Above all, there shouldn't be contradictions between this policy and guidelines. If we think there are, then let's identify them, so we can discuss how to resolve them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that if this policy is flexible enough, it is difficult for a guideline to contradict it. A tried and true test case is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I think we can agree that this title is a triumph of precision and consistency over recognizability and prevalence in reliable sources. Under the previous version, it was in violation of the policy, which proved that the policy failed to reflect consensus. Under the current version of this policy, I suppose it is not in contradiction, since it is clearly covered by "In cases where these criteria are in conflict with one another, the resulting questions are resolved by discussion towards building consensus, always with these principles in mind." Hesperian 13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't agree that that name is a triumph of anything except stubborn blind rule-mongering;) But I can't deny that it reflects the consensus, or at least the status quo, so this policy has to be worded so that it acknowledges that kind of situation.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (reply to PBS above) I'm not convinced that this discussion and these edits are "disrupting Wikipedia". Which article is unstable on account of these edits? What stability outside of the paragraphs we're tinkering with is jeopardized? Disruption has to be real disruption before it bothers me one bit. In particular, if no article is affected, then Wikipedia is not disrupted. Sorry. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Not actually sorry... just a figure of speech


 * Oh, no going back, please: sends a bad signal to everyone, including those who are likely to do the most work in fixing up the page. Yes, a draft would be sensible, starting with the current version of NC. Tony   (talk)  14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the sentence "Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)" from the latest version since it is a)non-consensus, and seems actually to go against the consensus reached a few weeks ago on this page, b) confusing c) advocates chaos in Naming Convention pages by appearing to giving people who "think" policies are in contradiction free rein to assault them, and d) would tend to make all Naming Convention pages redundant, since their sole purpose is to provide alternate or supplemental guidance for specific situations. That is a substantive change that requires community consensus.  Xan  dar   23:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what that sentence even means, or what problem it's meant to address. Can anyone answer the question I posted above at ? (This is not to say I oppose its inclusion, just that I don't get it. Sometimes I'm dense.) -GTBacchus(talk) 08:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied above but Xandar's answer should prove the point. See aboveDoes WP:NC defer? for more on this. -- PBS (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your reply. I'd still like to see it in concrete terms, as it applies to this policy. Have you got an example. That would be ideal, at least for the sweet understanding I'm trying to gain here. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is not concrete about that one? If it were not concrete why is Xandar reverting out the sentence? -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why Xandar does anything that he does. I would be happy to hear from him a concrete example (i.e. talk about a specific title of a specific article) of what is at stake with this sentence. If either of you do that, I'll be very happy. Until then, it seems to me to be an argument about sand. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence is both vague and disruptive. I know why some people want to include it here - because of a continuing argument at WP:Naming conflict, where certain people are wanting to radically change the policy there because they allege mistakenly that it conflicts with "Use most easily-recognised name". The general policy that policies outrank guidlines is stated elsewhere. What some people want to do is restate it here and particularise it to the naming convention guidelines. What that does is remove the position the Naming Conventions have as extensions to and exceptions from the general advice. That is a major and substantial change of policy which would have the effect of making the naming conventions redundant. In addition the statement goes further and adds "appears to contradict", giving anyone carte blanche to claim a contradiction and start edit-wars.  Xan  dar   10:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I don't care in the least "why some people want to include it here", unless I can understand what specifically is at stake. What article are you (or PBS) talking about? Which naming dispute hangs in the balance? I disagree that a sentence in policy gives anyone carte blache to do anything. That's because, per IAR, these policies are not laws, and I refuse to go along with a lawyerly interpretation of them as such. Editing words on policy pages does not change policy, but it might make the policy page more or less accurate. This is important to understand. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, PBS and some others are wanting to radically alter the WP:Naming conflict convention by removing the provisions on self-identifying entities; the excuse being that it "Conflicts with" the use common names policy here. WHen pointed out that this policy page does not provide a rigid rule, and specifically sets opt-outs through the recognised naming conventions, we suddenly find that those very sentences are suddenly being altered and negated on this page by some of the same people. Coincidence?  Xan  dar   22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen: are we going to use the drafting page I created? Did I do the wrong thing? Please see the bottom section for the link. Tony   (talk)  11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you did the right thing, but I want to revert to the stable version of the page that I suggested before with the additional minor modifications, otherwise the edit war will continue on this policy page. -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think following GTBacchus' excellent rewrite we don't need to fear an edit war, and there is no reason to go back to any previous version. The only urgent dispute at the moment seems to be whether to include the sentence about policies trumping guidelines - and since that's only a quote from another policy, it seems to be on the one hand uncontroversial, and on the other unnecessary (since it's there at the other policy page anyway). So whether we include it or not seems a fairly unimportant question. Of far greater importance is resolving the remaining contradictions (maybe there aren't any, but I fear there may be many) between the policy page and the various guideline pages, and generally making it all into one coherent whole. --Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kotniski. May I stress the urgency of not edit-warring on this page? Tony   (talk)  02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see an edit war here, and I must say that is mostly due to PBS's admirable restraint in not reverting, despite arguing that he should. There's an amusing irony there: PBS's restraint has delivered us a new (albeit temporary) stability, and if PBS does revert now, I'll be hard pressed to figure out whether he is preventing or initiating an edit war. :-) Hesperian 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Spaced dashes
Should en dashes be spaced in titles? Specifically, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Bilateral relations. — RockMFR 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MoS: Space the en dash if there's an internal space within one or both items; otherwise, unspaced. In essence, the appearance of the dash "opens up" with the items. Tony   (talk)  01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC) PS That list looks perfect, except for "Iran–United Kingdom relations", which should be "Iran – United Kingdom relations". Note that when one item is a particle only ("Sino") rather than a full word ("Chinese"), a hyphen is used instead. Tony   (talk)  01:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they should. I'm glad to say that most of those articles comply with that guideline, since I was the one who moved them. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft policy rewrite page
Let's deal with it here, please? Tony  (talk)  01:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ease of searching and linking
I mentioned this before but it got lost among with other issues. I don't see that "ease of searching and linking" needs to be one of the key principles (at least, not as it's currently articulated). Doesn't it just come down to the same as recognizability? Would anything be lost by leaving it out?--Kotniski (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much, no. I meant to reply to it earlier, but as you noted, it was run over by about 30 fast trains. I think it's a bit of an artifact from 5 years ago, when I used to bother to read policy (or whatever) pages. Redirects pretty much take care of the issue, although, if most links arrive at an article via a particular redirect, that seems to indicate that we at least consider whether that's a better title. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a minor consideration, which tends to be parallel to recognizability. But it is convenient to know, when writing about the twelfth century, that the actual title of Henry I of England is exactly that; it avoids dumping readers on the dab page Henry I. Also some readers object, on aesthetic grounds, to arriving on pages through redirects; if we can pipe them to the direct page, there's no harm in doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see the point about Henry I, but we seem agreed that it isn't one of the main principles, but should be mentioned somewhere - any suggestions as to where?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would mention it here; it's the justification for all systematic article naming, from WP:NCNT (which names all the kings of England as {Name} {Roman numeral} of England - except John of England) to WP:FLORA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we understand "it" completely differently then - for me it would tend to go against systematic naming, since readers are far less likely to search for systematic names (particularly when the system is invented by WP) than common or real names. But by "where" I didn't mean on which page, I meant in which section of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Until readers observe that we use systematic names; often not difficult. Ease of linking, however, cannot apply to readers, who do not make links, but to editors, who do. I thought I replied that this principle, minor though it is, is independent of the others - and so should be listed with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The way you're interpreting it, it seems not to be independent of the others, since the others include "Consistency". The way I interpret it, it's not independent of the others since the others include "Recognizability". Either way, it appears not to be useful as one of the 4/5 main principles listed in the overview. But perhaps it could have its own section among the "General principles" (along with such things as "Use English"), with the various competing aspects of the matter addressed.--Kotniski (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me think about it; it's been a while since we've discussed it. It also includes such points as our preference to use article names which can exist in running text: no parentheses when avoidable, a preference for short and colloquial forms, use of lower case when there is a choice, and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dashes and hyphens
PMA, I know this is one of your pet peeves, but what exactly is the point in continually changing the wording to downgrade the significance of the Manual of Style as regards use of hyphens and dashes? Is there a case where the way we use hyphens/dashes in titles ought to differ from the way we use them in article text?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It's the only mention of MOS in this text. That's because they cover text; we cover article naming. If I were Jimbo, it wouldn't be mentioned at all here; each guideline to its own field.
 * This would apply even if I thought MOS the best thing since sliced bread. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) MOS:DASH, as usual, covers dashes badly; it's an unsourced bunch of rules of thumb made up in school one day. At least dash has sources and cites them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would choose different rules for dash use too, if it were up to me. But given that whatever "sources" you look at will recommend different styles, and that we have chosen one of various acceptable styles for use in artcles, is there any reason not simply to refer people to that style to find out how to use these signs in titles? It hardly matters which guideline it comes in; guidelines refer to each other all the time to avoid repeating stuff. --Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an unrelenting crusade against MoS and a few of Mr Anderson's pet peeves there ("as usual, covers dashes badly ... made up in school one day"). I'm unsure I'd be quick to boast that Naming conventions covers article naming well—not yet it doesn't, which is why we're here to get on with the work; let's not throw stones.
 * Will someone please revert it? MoS makes quite a few mentions of Naming conventions; there seems to be a campaign to denigrate the converse, and to direct towards outlying articles that may be more to Mr Anderson's liking on the matter. He might also consult the definitions of civility and of edit-warring, which both appear to be relevant to this war of attrition. Third attempt in the past couple of months, is it, while there are fundamentals to fix here that require all our collaboration. Tony   (talk)  16:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed MOS is; a crusade by a handful of Language Reformers to impose some provinciality on the whole of Wikipedia - as harmful as Anglo-American warring and without its excuses in childhood patriotism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)No, a half-dozen editors have hammered one together out of bits and pieces; the result is not anybody's usage - some would call it dubiously literate. Some fields of study do something quite different (often simple hyphenation); their students came to MOS to complain, and been brushed off by the usual Masters of Style; so the section is not what our readers will expect, and not consensus. It is only as a compromise that I retain the link to that waste of electrons at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * However, it has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions that most of the style guides ask for en dashes. I am not prepared to tread circles again with you on the matter: this is a re-run of umpteen cycles that are almost exactly the same. Tony   (talk)  16:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, Tony, there is only one reason why literate editors care what those non-consensus essays say: to avoid having prose incompetently reworked by junior high school students who believe that MOS knows what it is talking about or represents an agreement of Wikipedia. It would be nice to have a useful Manual of Style, but it's not going to happen before our publication date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this page, all that matters is whether there is a situation where we would wish hyphen/dash use in a title to be different from the corresponding use in text. Personal prejudices aside, is there such a situation? If not, I don't see any problem in simply referring readers to the relevant MoS section to get the info on how dashes are used on WP. Referring them to other recommendations, however much some of us might personally wish those recommendations adopted, is just misleading.--Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid endorsing bad advice as policy? or is that too much to expect? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not bad advice - it's accurate advice as to how things are done on WP. Just as we "endorse" this weird system we have for naming monarchs, even though many people consider it bad advice, it conflicts with what reliable sources do etc. etc.--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, since the half-dozen who support it haven't bot-warred for this one, it doesn't even have that merit.


 * By contrast, our system of naming monarchs is what we actually do; it is also what we decide to do when the issue is discussed (or the monarchs would be moved - and I, at least, would modify the guideline). What the sources do is to name each of half a dozen monarchs Henry I, which would be fine for us - if only it were technically possible. But we can't have half-a-dozen articles all called Henry I, for a deeper reason than policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As the MOS is not a naming convention guideline so "see" is not appropriate. I think that the previous wording:


 * If dashes are used in page names, a redirect using hyphens must be provided (see also Manual of Style (dashes)).


 * should be used. -- PBS (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding also to the present text, which I think makes the distinction more clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Uniqueness
There is a sixth basic requirement: Article names must be unique; this causes much of the problem with the others. This sequence of edits added it, and tightened the others, but no change of guidance is intended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The nutshell
I really dislike the current nutshell as it stands:
 * "Articles are named in accordance with principles and conventions that Wikipedia has adopted through experience, in order to best serve readers of the encyclopedia."

I find it woolly and uninstructive: in almost the same way, the civility nutshell could be written by merely changing the first three words:
 * "Discussions are carried out in accordance with principles and conventions that Wikipedia has adopted through experience, in order to best serve readers of the encyclopedia."

...but I find the current nutshell there much more informative on how editors should be civil.

I would like to see a brief survey of the general principles, along the lines of:
 * "Article names are chosen to best serve the readers of the encyclopedia. Articles are given names used in reliable English-language sources which are both easily recognizable and sufficiently unambiguous.

Suggestions and comments? Knepflerle (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly prefer your version (and I'm the one who wrote the current one). Just don't let it get any longer than that, or it won't be worth having a nutshell at all (in fact I wouldn't mind if we didn't have a nutshell at all, but people seem to like them).--Kotniski (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How about
 * ''"Article names are optimised for the use of readers. As much as possible they should be recognisable, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable sources."

Hesperian 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I could certainly live with that. Knepflerle (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So could I (I think -ize spellings are used on this page though).--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to retain English-language.
 * "Article names are optimised for the use of readers. As much as possible they should be recognisable, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * -ize and English are both fine with me. Hesperian 23:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

recognisability and reliable sources
The common names section presently says both ""what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize—usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English."" and ""Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."" These would be redundant to each other if they weren't subtly contradictory. As some of you know, I am too steeped in a long-standing dispute in this area, for me to be bold here. Does someone want to fix it, or shall we first thrash out what "fix" means here?

My own opinion, despite my having relied on the latter wording for many months, is that the former of these is more in the spirit of the convention. However I was not involved in the protracted disputes that resulted in the inclusion of the latter in the first place.

Hesperian 13:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the disputes were about, nor can I imagine how this difference wording could conceivably have affected anything, but to me too, the former wording seems preferable (and the second can therefore be removed as redundant).--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a pedantic issue with "verifiable reliable sources". Sources aren't "verifiable"; facts are verifiable via sources. I would replace "verifiable reliable sources in English" with "reliable, English-language sources". -GTBacchus(talk) 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be a point here, even if verifiable doesn't express it. The existence of the sources, and that they actually use X, should be checkable; there is a risk that somebody will cite a pile of books, without titles or page numbers, and claim they are reliable sources for the name he wants to push. I'm not sure how to say this, and not absolutely sure it's worth saying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. How about.... "usually the most commonly used name that we can verify as being used in reliable, English-language sources."? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't see a difference between usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English and Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Both weasel-word around the rare cases in which the sources do not use the most recognizable term (presumably we would have to have a statement in the sources admitting this) and where none of the reliable sources are in English. If Hesperian can explain his contradiction, it would help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide an example of a case where the sources do not use the most recognizable term? Are you thinking of plant articles, perhaps, or something like the "shit" v. "feces" case, or is it something else? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I merely identify a logical possibility, as one reason for generally and primarily; I wasn't thinking of anything in particular. If I were pressed, I suppose the pedantry-chasing by which Chippewa has become Ojibway, Ojibwa and now Ojibwe, as the scholars keep changing their minds about to represent non-English sounds, and the article chases these ever-moving goalposts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Take the name "Scharnhorst class warship (1936)", that was chosen because it could not be agreed what the most common name is. If the editors had followed the naming conventions for ships, it would have been one of four choices, so that is a case where usually comes into play--Depending on sources the it could be "Scharnhorst class" or "Gneisenau class" and the class can either be referred to as battleship or battlecruiser. But a better example is when we use a descriptive name, or an English language name that does not exist in reliable English Language sources, in which case it is not the common name as found in reliable English Language sources, although hopefully it is still the most recognisable name eg Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the "shit" v "feces" case is the more useful. There is a rich vein of such examples running through the topics of private bodily parts and functions: e.g. "shit" v "feces", "defecation" v "pooing/shitting", "testes" v "balls", "flatulence" v "farting"/"wind", etc. Biological example that don't require us to turn this policy into a toilet door include "humerus" v "funny bone", "patella" v "knee cap", "orbital bone" v "eye socket", "calcaneus" v "heel bone", ... Hesperian 23:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not link to articles?

 * '' dashes are used in page names, a redirect using hyphens must be provided (see also Manual of Style (dashes)).

Why not consult our article on Dash, which at least has sources and citations? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed; but the MoS should fitly be first, since it is a sibling page in WP's advisory/policy infrastructure and has a different status (and hopefully greater stability and monitoring) than those articles. I've made this change. Tony   (talk)  00:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, this is more of Tony's empire-building. We don't have an advisory/policy infrastructure; we're not a bureaucracy. MOS is far less stable than this page; that's the cost of being maintained by revert-warring, not consensus. I will adopt PBS's solution, below, if he hasn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "also" or "see also" must appear before Manual of Style (dashes) because the MOS (dashes) is not a naming convention guideline. There is no reason why editors should not be pointed towards the MOS but there should be no wording that implies that the wording of the MOS expands and explains the naming conventions. That way lies confusion and disharmony. The other side of the coin is that the Naming Conventions should not dictate what appears in articles. --PBS (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But as far as use of hyphens/dashes is concerned, surely the same rules are supposed to be followed in titles as in article bodies (i.e. those listed at MOSDASH?)--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care - and would not care if I were free to do something about it - what MOS says about dashes; we should not use rules made up in school one day, and if we must refer readers to an unreliable source like a Wikipedia page, we should choose the one with sources and citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's perfectly reasonable for us to point editors to Wikipedia's house style instead of to an article that tells people about non-Wikipedia uses of the same punctuation marks.  In fact, since an editor looking at this page is presumably looking for information about how dashes are (and aren't) used on Wikipedia, instead of how they are used in various irrelevant situations, times, and places around the world, it would be pretty silly to exclude the link to MOSDASH.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If our house style on dashes were not something that a handful of Language Reformers made up in school one day, without sources or citations, I might agree. As it is, however, I will consult printed style guides if available, and dash, which has collated them, if not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the question is "How does Wikipedia use dashes?", then a respones of "Well, Chicago says dashes ought to be used like this..." is somewhere between irrelevant and willfully stupid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental objective
I dispute that choosing a recognisable title is the "fundamental objective" of our naming conventions. As I have said many times, we have multiple priorities here, of which accessibility is just one. Others are consistency, precision, accuracy and neutrality. One only has to look at the broad sweep of specific conventions to see that many titles are a balancing act between two or more of these priorities. To claim accessibility trumps all as our "fundamental objective" is just ridiculous. The over-emphasis on accessibility was bad enough before; now it is worse. Hesperian 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A while back, I drafted a re-write of this convention, which was aimed at recognising the many priorities involved in choosing a name; but I abandoned it after Septentrionalis convinced me that all of these priorities flow from the "by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." It is all very well to assess the various options in terms of consistency, precision, accuracy, neutrality, accessibility, and so on; but ultimately a decision has to be made, and there can be no better grounds for making that decision than to do whatever reliable sources do.

This being the case, the fundamental principle here is in fact "follow reliable sources". "Use a recognisable name" stems from that, as do the other priorities.

Unfortunately, recent changes to this policy have promoted "Use the most recognisable name" to the status of fundamental objective, and removed any mention of following reliable sources from the overview section. This is unacceptable.

Hesperian 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

These changes to policy should not be made without community-wide consensus. I have reverted this to the original wording too.  Xan  dar  23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Community-wide consensus is a nefarious concept – is it what you determine it means? And does it apply to the cleaning up of plain bad prose? Tony   (talk)  01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No there's a difference between cleaning up bad prose, which is okay; and making substantive changes to policy that apply globally across the project. If a policy change is to have effect on a large number of articles, and possibly restart numerous old battles and edit-warring campaigns, then it needs wider consideration by the community. That is laid down in wikipedia policy on Policies and guidelines.  Xan  dar   10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The overview section still lacks any mention of following reliable sources. Hesperian 00:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I too would support wording including such a mention. Knepflerle (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that Xander has removed the word "primarily", which seems to have been added in support of Hesperian's point above. I think it was safer with "primarily", since the exclusion of all but what sources say appears to be rather restrictive for all cases. Xander has also reverted the good changes to that appalling sentence in the first section: now we're stuck back at "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I've asked on her/his talk page to justify "reasonable" and the inclusion of both "easy" and "second nature". We're not going to get far this way. Tony   (talk)  01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "We're not going to get far this way." No. This page already suffers extremely from inertia. I'd rather not add to that by reverting, unless we are clearly heading in the wrong direction—which we are on this reliable sources issue, but otherwise not. Shall I try for a defter revert? Hesperian 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Xandar appeared to be acting on my above objection to the removal of the reliable sources stuff from the overview, I have undone Xandar's wholesale revert and restored what I had objected to the removal of. Hopefully this will meet Xandar's purpose without rolling back all the other changes. It is far from where I was hoping to take this, so my comments above still stand. My purpose in reverting was not so much to achieve anything on this point as to allow other threads to progress independently of it. Hesperian 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems we're again developing into a situation where we have two opening sections both trying to say the same thing, in different (and not necessarily consistent) words. Can we make up our minds - to what extent does "recognizable" mean "used in reliable sources", and to what extent does it just mean "used"? And to what extent (and for what reasons) do to we want to allow particular specialized naming conventions to override the general principle of using the most recognizable name? I don't believe the answer to either of these questions can be 0% or 100% - can someone find a manner of phrasing that accurately expresses the balance that applies in practice?--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not happy with "where recognizability is determined by what reliable sources in English call the subject." I read it first as referring to a grammatical subject (which part of a name the sources regard as the grammatical subject). Can't it be "where recognizability is determined by ''how reliable English-language sources name the subject". Is that the intended meaning? Tony   (talk)  09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to have "where recognizability is determined by what reliable sources in English call the subject" and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name primarily by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." in the policy, particularly when they do not say exactly the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing deleting one of these statements? Which one?--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed: I don't know why PBS though I was proposing that both be used side by side. If the second is the intended meaning, it is clearer and should be substituted. Tony   (talk)  12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, I didn't I was making another point that supported what you said. But I think too much is happening too fast. See my comment below in -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've again restored the original wording of "Generally" to the newly added "Fundamental principle" leading sentence, and taken out the contradictory and illogical "when a guideline appears to contradict policy" new sentence. The new wording would be moving towards a doctrinaire approach that would make the general principle of recognizable/common names into a rigid rule that would replace the currently stable and effective practices codified in the various Naming Convention sections and pages. This is "fixing" something that isn't broken, in a way that would cause significant disruption across the project. The naming convention pages have grown up for good reason - because many significant issues arise for which a one-size-fits-all approach to a naming rule doesn't work.  Xan  dar  10:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In a sense, the fact that naming conflicts do now cause quite significant disruption is an indicator that something is broken. It would be wrong to blame it entirely on the confused way the naming policy/guidelines are written, but it surely doesn't help. I agree that there isn't just one criterion for solving naming disagreements, although there is a principle that has always tended to hold sway in the vast majority of cases - we need to find a way of expressing that.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reminder - I would just remind participants in this discussion that our policies are, historically and currently, descriptions of best practices, and not statutory law. The fact is that we have various naming conventions operating in various domains of article-space. I say this as someone who has closed thousands of move requests over several years. Where a particular WikiProject reaches a consensus on some particular naming convention, is is de facto the case that their naming convention supersedes the general principle of WP:COMMONNAME. Changing what it says on the policy page cannot change that; it can only make the policy page more or less accurate. These are not laws, this is not court, and editing policy is not some kind of word-magic that will force reality to comply. If you want naming conventions to change, then go about convincing people about specific cases, and once you've done that, abstract the experience to a description of what happened. This is how it works, per WP:IAR, WP:PPP, and probably lots of other pages. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's what we're trying to do. Can you help? Can you suggest a wording (for the first few sections of the page) that well describes the situation as it operates, based on your experience?--Kotniski (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, whaddya think: ? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned - what do others think?--Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most excellent. Hesperian 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * However, I still believe that we should be following usage in reliable source, and that this should be elevated to a core principle. Hesperian 12:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good one. Rather than "elevating it to" a core principle (we haven't got that power), I fully agree with "identifying it as" one. (Yes, that's pedantic. Sorry, but here we are, in pedant's paradise.) This principle seems very closely related to the recognizability one, because names used in reliable sources will tend to be recognizable because of that. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what PMAnderson convinced me when I last attempted a draft: that it is all very well to articulate our criteria, but in the end we have to make a choice, and there can be no better choice than doing whatever reliable sources do (I think I'm misrepresenting him, but what's important here is what he convinced me of, not what he was trying to say.) For context you might want to skim Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 12. Re: "names used in reliable sources will tend to be recognizable because of that." Yes, and where a more recognizable name is rejected by reliable sources, the principle of least surprise suggests we should reject it to. e.g. Kotniski's "shit" versus "feces" example. The principle of least surprise tells us to reject the more recognizable name in favor of the name preferred by reliable sources, because that is what our readers would expect us to do. Hesperian 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the upshot of what you're saying. Is it that the "following reliable sources" criterion trumps all the others? The vision I've got of these criteria is that they are all taken into consideration, and individual cases are decided by consensus, with them in mind. Readers familiar with the English sundew may well be astonished by the name Drosera anglica, but WP:NC(flora) indicates the use of scientific names, for consistency. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no trumping. For months I've fought against the notion that "use the most common name" trumps all our other values; the last thing I want is for some other criterion to step into its place. What you've done here is the way it should be: we state our values, and we resolve tensions between them on a field-by-field or case-by-base basis. But I guess I see "follow reliable sources" as something different, not a criterion, but rather a resolution method. If there is a tension between our values, as in your sundew example where (granted for the sake of the discussion) recognizability is at odds with consistency, then we need some way of choosing the name that best balances our values. The argument goes that reliable sources share our values, and have to make exactly the same naming decisions, so we'll just do what they do. If the majority of reliable sources say "screw consistency; everyone knows it as the English sundew so we'll call it that too", then we ought to do the same. ... However you have given me pause, to wonder whether what I have just said is not just the same as giving one criterion a casting vote—which brings us back to trumping. I don't want to do that. Hesperian 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's what we;re trying to do, then how the hell did
 * "Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Policies and guidelines)."
 * end up in there?! This is the antithesis of what GTBacchus is saying! And it was rejected by the community yet again just three short months ago; see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 13. What gives?!
 * (Thankyou GTBacchus. I endorse your statement 100%.)
 * Hesperian 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a quote from WP:Policy? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proposal to strengthen commonname.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it comes from. Notwithstanding the title, the "Strengthen COMMONNAME" discussion was about whether WP:NC (xxx) could override WP:NC. Hesperian 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not strictly true that "our policies are, historically and currently, descriptions of best practices, and not statutory law." because they are are part of a loop back system, whatever is said in a policy tends to be reflected in the naming and structure of articles. Hence the less a policy or guideline change the closer practice tends to be to that policy. Change a policy which is usually undertaken because of inherent conflicts within the wording of the polices and guidelines and it tends to ripple out through the talk pages of articles and hence into the content of articles. -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that people tend to treat policies as if they are laws. What is really happening there is that people are agreeing that what has worked in the past is continuing to work. As soon as it fails to work, it is instantly negated, per IAR. The fact that many editors are oblivious to this nuance is not an indication that we should join them in oblivion. It means that we need to better articulate our policies so that they are understood as descriptions of previous broad consensus. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If NC is to take itself seriously as a policy, rather than a style guide, it must be no mere description of what a group of editors think are current best practices: it must set out policy. Tony   (talk)  14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To "take itself seriously as policy"? I'm not sure what that means. I don't believe that it means becoming statutory law, or something like that. It means it reflects and records broad consensus established over many cases, over a lot of time. All any of our policies have ever done is describe best practices that we've discovered. I know there is a popular idea to treat policy as law, but I must fundamentally disagree with that conception. Ignore all rules takes itself seriously as policy, and per that policy, the other policies, in order to take themselves seriously in the same way, are not statutes, but descriptions. This is the radical notion at the heart of all Wikipedia policy. The page WP:PPP is a pretty good description of this notion. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the upshot of this sentence?
"Where a naming guideline appears to conflict with this policy, the policy takes precedence (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)." I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. What does this policy say that a specific naming guideline would conflict with? Since the policy allows that specific guidelines are often adopted for the purpose of consistency, how is a contradiction possible. In other words, policy says that specific agreements exist and hold sway, so how do these specific agreements contradict policy? Can someone provide an example of a situation that this sentence addresses? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Were you not involved in the WP:RS WP:V consensus building exercise just before and during the WP:ATT experience? And for that matter the attempts to harmonise the content of the main MOS guideline with subsidiary/specialised MOS guidelines?


 * Guidelines should complement and enhance policy, but occasionally they contradict it or could be read in such a way that they appear to contradict it. In such cases if they appear to contradict policy, then they should be read in such a way that they do not, and in the case where they do contradict policy they need to be altered (or the policy needs to be altered) so that there is no inherent contradiction. It is much better to fix contradictions than leave them (which is the easy option for policy specialists), because such contradictions cause endless debate among editors on article talk pages, AfDs etc, etc. --PBS (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the general principle. I just don't see how it applies to this situation. Can you help me with that? Can you talk about any specific example, please? I'm open to learn something here. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It means, in practice, "Please start long and pointless disputes about whether an article should be called Aristotelia serrata (following the specific guideline) or Wineberry (New Zealand) (following the general policy)." This sentence would cause many avoidable problems.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I'm astonished that anyone would question the need for reliable sources for article names. I'm not talking about the issues over what constitutes a reliable source for an individual article, but rather the general principle.

Certainly there are no discrete states, but I see three clear modes: reliable sources, unreliable sources, and original research. It's amusing to consider the second ("Wikipedia endorses unreliable sources—film at eleven"), but I don't see it ever gaining any traction. Some of the statements that others have made, I could construe to support original research, but I'm content to assume that's not what they meant. All that is left is reliable sources.

I'm not saying that a new article can't be created unless its name can be sourced. I'm not even suggesting fact-tagging article names (I'm not even sure the software supports it). What I'm saying is that, in any disagreement over an article name, a reliable source should always trump original research or an unreliable source, and that, in any contest between sourced names, reliability must be one of the criteria.

Is that too much to ask?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is questioning the need for reliable sources? I'm following the discussion, and I seem to have missed that bit. I thought we all agreed that it's a fundamental principle. Am I missing something? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I used the find tool in Firefox and was able to follow the general threads without any trouble. I'd hate to have to step through history to find the diffs, but I suppose I could if I had to. Born2cycle in my estimation has long been an opponent of reliable sources if they support a technical name over a name that he feels the is correct "common" name, and M made a statement above against reliable sources, although seems to have accepted them later. Besides myself, Hesperian and PBS have indicated that "reliable sources" should be a requirement. Considering how often it is mentioned, it would be nice if we could decide to include it first, and then determine how to weigh it against other factors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The find tool in Firefox? Showoff. :p It is in the policy now, so asking that we decide to include it... I think we've got you covered. I agree that it's fundamental (I personally added it to the policy this evening - did your fancy-dancy "find tool" reveal that? ;) ), and anyone disagreeing seems to have the short end. Do you think it should be more emphasized than it is now? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just weary from past battles. Sorry.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, that happens around here. Keep the faith. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand Born2cycle's argument it is not that B2C disagrees with using reliable sources, it is more to do with the relative weighting between sources. It is quite often the case that experts in a field use a term which is only used by specialists in that field—the use of specalised language jargon/slang as a group identifier is itself a well studied academic topic in its own right—and in a specialist academic journal they may well use a term that non specialists could recognise easily, (we do it here with abbreviations like WP:RM, WP:V, NPOV etc).

If for some reason such a topic comes up in widely read newspaper, just one article in a popular newspaper using a different name is more likely to be the name known to more people than the name used in the specalised academic source with a small readership. For this reason B2C argues that widely read or broadcast sources, are more reliable for naming an article than academic journals — the reverse of what WP:SOURCES suggests.

Last year when added the rule about use the reliable sources to WP:NC, we could have written a separate set for WP:NC, and I considered this at the time and rejected it, because
 * firstly I could not think of a simple obvious algorithm and that we could use that stated a mention in the NYT was weighted by "n" while a mention in "obscure academic journal" was weighted by "a", and were would that put a mention of a topic in The Sun ....
 * secondly it added a level of complexity in editorial maintenance of the section WP:NC#SOURCES with the endless arguments over how close it should be to WP:V#SOURCES, that the gains it would have given us for a small minority of articles where a common name weighted by the readership of publications, differed from the common name used in publications, and

So I came to the conclusion that although I could fully understand B2C's argument, I could not see a simple way to implement it and editorial maintenance would be considerable, so using the KISS principle linking to WP:SOURCES was the best solution, although I could see that following the reliable sources as defined in WP:V occasionally an article would end up at a name that was not the common name, in that case I would hope that a local consensus would form to WP:IAR when naming it. -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Having watched my own conversations with reporters distorted in print, and seen plenty of examples of newspaper articles with misinformation about a variety of scientific concepts, I'm leery of using a single newspaper article as a reference for the name or nature of any technical subject. There's the danger of giving the Wikipedia stamp of approval to a misstatement. As several of us have pointed out, another principle of article naming is accuracy—I hope we all agree that no article should have a name that is flat-out wrong. But in the haste to choose a "common" name over a "technical" one for a subject that is not widely known, there is a real danger of adopting someone else's mistake.Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS understands my argument, though I've never said anything about a single newspaper article trumping all academic sources, which is the one point Curtis latched onto. But, in general, yes, assuming the name usage in one large newspaper (NY Times, WSJ, London Times, etc.) article is not based on misinformation (which can be easily verified in the case of name usage with a google test), it is probably a better indicator of what name would be most likely recognized by general readers than would more academic sources.  In fact, usage in academic sources is arguably not the third party reference that we prefer in Wikipedia, especially with respect to name usage.  Further, and this is the controversial part of my argument, I contend that usage in so-called "unreliable" sources, like blogs, myspace and facebook, forum posts, and user posts on news websites, is actually more reliable -- not individually but taken in aggregate -- with respect to determining what names are most commonly used, and most likely to be recognized by the reader, than are the "reliable sources" we use to substantiate article content.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All this seems to me to be a really good way to perpetuate misinformation. If, for example, I wanted to carry out a scholarly study of the common name of a plant species, I'd go around to various people across the area where it occurs with a sample and ask them "What's this called?" I'd thereby get a big sample size; I might end up with multiple common names, but I'd be able to say "farmers call it 'this', except in the rice-farming areas around the delta, where they call it 'that'; cattle ranchers call it 'the other thing', and landscapers call it 'crapola'." Which of those names would be used for the Wikipedia article would most likely still be discussed with some fervor, but at least there would be evidence to be brought to bear.


 * But let's say that a cattle rancher's citified son wrote a blog in which he talked about his youth and the smell of flowering 'the other thing'. He looked in a wildflower book, and it best seemed to match Cosa otra, so he included that binomial as well. People googling for Cosa otra came upon the name 'the other thing' and used that as the common name for the plant. After a while, there might be a few dozen references. A newspaper might pick it up, and on the basis of googling (and especially because of the Wikipedia article of the same name, which Born2cycle had moved from Cosa otra, proclaimed that its common name was 'the other thing').


 * Clearly the information has flowed through a bottleneck, and there is but a single data point. Most of the people who create the online content might never have seen 'the other thing' in the wild, and at any rate there are fewer of them than of farmers who call it 'this' or 'that'. But all this is moot, because one of those cabalistic specialists identified plants called 'this', 'that', and 'the other thing' (oh, and 'crapola', too), by using technical keys and comparing with museum specimens, including the type, and found that they were all Cosa esculenta, not Cosa otra.


 * If a reader outside the range of Cosa otra were to recognize any name at all, it would be 'the other thing', because that's what's on the web. And one could argue that that common name is "right"; after all, people use it. And perhaps the opinion of the rice farmer ("That ain't no 'that'! Why, hell, that there plant don't even grow round these parts.") doesn't count for anything. But I think Wikipedia and the world have lost, rather than gained, by following this path.


 * And if this seems contrived, I've witnessed all the individual pieces, and it's perhaps unlikely but certainly possible that they could all co-occur.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It might help that our policies are not a suicide pact. If we adopt some standard, and that standard leads to clear misinformation, then the standard is instantly negated in that case, and we revisit the question with regard to the particular example. Does that make any difference, as you see it? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Instantly negating" the standard is only possible if everyone agrees to do so. A single editor waving a standard seems to count more that an handful with an alternate solution, and, no matter how it turns out, time is spent that could otherwise go into editing.


 * One of the recurring issues with the names of plant articles has been disagreement over what constitutes misinformation, and an impetus for the current guideline was to rein in the endless quibbling. An accomplished editor asserted that common names used by him and others in Britain were correct, and that common names used elsewhere (although documented in reliable sources) were misinformation; in part as a result of that most often being against consensus, he left Wikipedia.


 * Hesperian has written until his extremities turned blue about the need to balance all criteria in naming: accuracy, unambiguity, and NPOV being as important as recognizability. Technical names often have an edge in every area but recognizability, and so Born2cycle's deprecation of them in favor of common names elevates recognizability over the other criteria. I object to that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns
I'm wondering about the following issues:
 * 1) Ease of searching and linking. Is this really one of the key criteria? I mean, obviously we want searching and linking to be easy, but when we have redirects, is it really that important (separately from recognizability, which we already list) for the article name to match the most common search/link term?
 * 2) Precision. It works both ways - we sometimes have problems with people being overprecise in article names. Perhaps that side of the coin should also be alluded to in the "Precision" paragraph under Overview?
 * 3) The "User the most recognized name" section says "except where other Wikipedia naming conventions say otherwise", with WP naming conventions linked to the section of the page called "Speific conventions and other guidelines". Is this really what we mean? It seems to be a relic of a trumping model, which implies "this list of rules trump common name, and common name trumps everything else". If that were the case then we wouldn't even bother listing the other guidelines in between (Use English and so on) or the other criteria at the top. What is it we're actually trying to say here?--Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking you second point yes precision works both ways we have discussed that before which is why I think that "reasonable" should be in front of "reasonable minimum of ambiguity,". Taking your third point that is what is say now because the sections have been combined but if we go back to a previous wording: "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded."

I have repeatedly argued that the conventions were only contained in this policy document the rest are guidelines to the policy not conventions. -- PBS (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that wording better than the sentence that I still don't understand (still waiting for replies above from PBS or Xandar). That's something I've seen applied (indeed, have myself applied) in the field, and I "get it". Use COMMONNAME, unless some other naming convention indicates otherwise. Very simple, boom. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. And PBS is wrong to try to argue that there are separate Naming Conventions, and "Guidelines" to Naming Conventions. This is untrue. All the naming conventions are guidelines with equal status, and they are referred to on this page and listed atthis Category page.  Xan  dar   23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this preoccupation with the "status" of pages. That's a bunch of hoodoo. Pages in the project space are accurate insofar as they describe best practices, and otherwise, they're inaccurate. They're not laws. Any caviling over "this is a policy but that is a guideline" is simply irresponsible. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the key impulse behind the desire to remove the sentence in question is making the Naming Conventions of rigid subsidiary status to the general rule set out on this page of "use common names".  Xan  dar   11:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you describing your impulse, or someone else's? If it's someone else's I won't believe you. Well, if you can tell me what number I'm thinking of, I'll believe you. ;) hint: it's not an integer! There is no such thing on Wikipedia as "rigid subsidiary status", and nobody can wish such a cancer into existence, thank Zeus. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "except whether other accepted naming conventions give a different indication, do this:" is a relic of the trumping model. We've moved away from that. It doesn't need to be rephrased. It needs to be removed. But the main problem there is that "Use the most recognised name" is still big-noting itself. Hesperian 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kotinski, PBS is correct in that your concern (3), The "Use the most recognized name" section says "except where other Wikipedia naming conventions say otherwise", did not apply prior to your recent merge. Prior to the recent merge there was no mention of "except where other Wikipedia naming conventions say otherwise" in that section. As I said above, I believe this in and of itself is grounds for reverting that merge, unless that limitation is removed from the current version. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Things do not "apply" or not according to whether they are written on a policy page. That is a superstition that we need to root out. It is de facto the case, per thousands of completed move requests, that specific conventions tend to take precedence over more general ones, while at the same time being informed by the more general ones. Note the intentionally non-legalistic wording "tend to take precedence over". These are not laws, and altering words on a policy page does not change reality. For that, you actually have to convince people of things, in context. "In context" means, not here, but at WikiProjects and on specific articles. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse Born2cycle's revert. The "except where" clause is now explicit elsewhere, and implicit in the tone of the page, so it needn't be spelled out again specifically in this section. Hesperian 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally confused now - you're all telling me that a phrase we have now wasn't there before, then quoting a passage that shows that it was there before. And you're all talking about merges when what happened in the end wasn't a merge, but a rewriting of two sections (the first one more so than the second). Perhaps we could stop looking at the history and look at what we have on the page now - what is illogical or inaccurate about it and therefore needs to be changed? In particular, what can we say about the actual order of precedence in which the various "rules" are applied? Do people accept GTB's statement that specific conventions tend to take precedence over more general ones?--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a matter of precedence; this is another part of the superstition GTBacchus was talking about. If someone comes here looking for the consensus view on how they should name a particular article, they are more likely to get that from a specific, tailored convention (where one exists), than from a broadly applicable, general one. Hesperian 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When I said "take precedence", I didn't mean in a legal sense. I just meant that people tend to follow the specific over the general. It's an observation, not... something else. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, my head is spinning. To respond to one little point above, PBS, the word "reasonable" has no place in a policy statement, at least not in that clause. Reasonable in whose opinion? The common-law legal test of "the reasonable person" is irrelevant here. Tony   (talk)  10:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment further up this page which starts For example "minimum of ambiguity" ... --PBS (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have again restored the important passage that Kotniski is so desperate to remove from this policy without consensus. "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article..."

It is important and quite clear - even though it interferes with some people's intentions for the Wikpedia:Naming conflict and other pages. Such a major policy change requires community wide consensus.  Xan  dar  11:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that by restoring that sentence you convert a principle back into a rule, making it more binding on the specific conventions, not less. I really think you're bidding against yourself here. Hesperian 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Particularly since the section it links to is quite clearly another section of this page, and has nothing to do with Naming Conflict (which is a different page). I think your (Xandar's) own obsession with that page is making you assume that everything anyone else does is somehow connected with that page.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Or indeed that anyone who seems to be against you can be referred to as "Kotniski" in edit summaries.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has the power to "convert into a rule" anything. Nobody can create a rule on Wikipedia. Im-freakin'-possible. If you believe you can do that, or that anyone else can, that's a form of cancer. I wouldn't keep harping on this point, except I think it's incredibly important. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing break in "Concerns" section
At the moment this conversation is yet converging on an agreed solution. In the mean time people are editing in and out their preferred wording. I have resisted joining into that process, but as my comments should have made clear I am not at all happy with some of them. So I think it is better that we go back to an earlier version which reflects the consensus as it has been for many months with all the ambiguity that it has.

I have placed the latest changes to the text into Tony's Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Draft policy rewrite and reverted the page as I suggested above. 17:09, 30 August 2009 With two additions:
 * add into that one the Polish convention.
 * and revert out the alteration that Pmanderson made to dashes sentence.

I hope that is a reasonable compromise as we attempt to reach a consensus on a new version. To begin with I suggest that we copy this section to another talk page and continue the conversation there (perhapse Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Draft policy rewrite/Talk but some one else who is more familiar with such things may be able to suggest a better name).

The editing and conversations over the last few days have shown that at least among the few editors who have been editing here that there are great tensions over the best way forward and I hope that with good will we can come up with wording that will satisfy everyone. But I would ask people to refrain from editing the Policy Page until we have a consensus for a clear change. And I suggest that we salami slice the problem as it will make it easier to reach a consensus. For example I think that the change Tony made to the lead paragraph should be reinstated into policy. That could be done if no one objects to the change. We can then move onto other areas and see if there is consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any justification for doing what you just did. When you suggested doing it no-one supported it; it shows disrespect for other editors to revert their efforts for no reason. There is no great tension about the current version (any more than there was over the previous one) - we're working on improving it. Please discuss specific points or make bold edits if there are things you're not happy about.--Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made a bold edit, and I think that your current suggestion of make bold edits to the policy page, when I know that there are people who disagree with me currently, instead of trying to reach a consensus for change first is not a good idea as it leads to edit warring. -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "There is no great tension about the current version (any more than there was over the previous one)" Yes there is great tension, that is obvious when we can not even agree if a sentence copied from WP:policies and guidelines should or should not be in this policy. --PBS (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets wait and see what other editors think. Because at the moment I do not see any support for the version that you are wishing to keep. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't see any justification. Everyone on this page appears to be happy with the broad direction we've taken this, except Philip Baird Shearer, and I've yet to see Philip Baird Shearer be happy with any change to this page. As far as I can tell, there is far more support for the new version than for the old. The only dispute is over a single sentence, and even with respect to that sentence there is agreement amongst the disputants that the general convention should deal in principles rather than hard rules. This is essentially a spillover from another dispute, not a disagreement with the thrust of the changes recently made here. As I said above, I'm inclined to see a revert like this as precipitating an edit war, rather than preventing it. Ultimately it is a revert to PBS's preferred version, against the wishes of at least four other editors. In that context, it was reckless, not bold. Hesperian 12:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. I had been pleased to note that PBS had ceased his WP:OWNer-like behaviour on this page recently - clearly I was too optimistic. Since no-one is willing to stand up to him, let's at least move this page to his user space so it can be clear to everyone whose views it represents.--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hesperian. It is not over a single sentence. There is no mention in the policy of what "common name" means. Without that in the policy, common name is relegated to nothing more than any other guideline. AFAICT that is not something that most people that have been editing this page want although I can see that you Hesperian and Xandar may wish that to be true. If such a change is to be made intentionally then a lot more than the editors currently involved in this disillusion should indicate if they are in favour or not as it fundamentally changes the meaning of this policy, from where it has stood for many years. -PBS (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kotniski, please do not assume bad faith. I am in favour of change, but it must be consensual change, and not edit warring change. I happen to think that combining the two sections is a good idea. But the bits have not slotted into place and we are a long way from agreement on them. I suggest we work on the Draft and then put it in place, when there is agreement. -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Work on the Draft"? No, this is a trap into which I will not fall again. It is beyond my ability to present Philip Baird Shearer with a perfect rewrite, and in the face of an imperfect improvement Philip Baird Shearer will forever quibble, and forever declare the absense of consensus. Philip Baird Shearer will be able to declare the absense of consensus for all eternity because ultimately the only way to test consensus is to do what we have done: edit the policy, and see if it sticks; and that Philip Baird Shearer will not permit. Thus consensus is held hostage to the whims of Philip Baird Shearer, by the simple expedient of a willingness to repreatedly revert in the name of "no consensus" no matter how well things seem to be going, no matter how happy with things everyone else is. Hesperian 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are assuming bad faith. Just as one example I did not approve the the changes that user user:M made to "Specific conventions and other guidelines" but I left them in place, and only reverted because I was asked to by another editor who thought I had made them. I am willing to work on a draft version in good faith. But I object to changes being made here that in my opinion fundamentalist alter these conventions. -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "You are assuming bad faith." Not at all. I believe you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. But that doesn't make your rigid conservatism any less frustrating. I will not again fall into the trap of letting you decide when to give a change the green light, because for you, the light never ever changes. Hesperian 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In cases where one feels that others are assuming bad faith, it is often more effective and de-escalatory to simply explain one's intentions than to accuse the other party. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (multiple edit conflicts) In response to PBS's most recent revert, with edit summary "There is no consensus for this version. Take it to the talk page. I think that I do have support", I can only observe that of the admittedly small number of people who are paying attention here, Hesperian, Kotniski, GTBacchus and Curtis Clark all support the rewrite. Tony1 and Born2cycle are little harder to read, but certainly neither of them have come out against it. PBS alone opposes it, and at this point he has entered into very little discussion about it, other than to repeatedly express the opinion that there is not yet consensus for it. PBS has expressed his desire for stability, but evidence suggests that he alone is standing in the way of stability. After all, in the absense of PBS's unexplained wholesale reverts, we would merely be quibbling over the inclusion of a largely unimportant sentence. Hesperian 12:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How can mention of "common name" be worked into the Draft version of General principles? --PBS (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very easily - why are you suddenly making an issue of this? It would have just been one sentence to change - no need to reverse the whole thing. --Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not suddenly made an issue of it. I have made this clear before, it is linked to the sentence from policy and guidelines. This is an issue at the nub of this recent dissagreement. --PBS (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it then. Does my last edit satisfy you? If not, what do you think is still missing?--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is becoming more and more difficult to discuss changes in a calm manner when changes like this are being made on the fly. Now I agree with the former wording. I do not agree with the latter. The former is much closer to the original paragraph. The latter is not. The latter only applied to common names. Now it delegates the whole of the policy to guidelines, if it is not coupled to the sentence from policy and guidelines. So what do I do revert out those changes, and edit war over them? Much better to discuss such large changes to a draft, than to the policy page-- PBS (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that you are opposed to the inclusion of the "Except where other accepted... " bit, then you agree with Hesperian, Kotniski, GTBacchus and Born2cycle—another case of something agreed to by a broad cross-section of editors. The only person who insists on this being included is Xandar, and not because he disagrees with the broad thrust of this revision; rather because he believes its removal impacts an unrelated dispute. I'm going to take it out. Hesperian 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS, if you find it difficult to discuss in a calm manner, I quite sincerely suggest a walk somewhere out-of-doors. If it's not raining or otherwise inhospitable, it is often the case that exposure to a bit of nature does wonders for our nerves. I plan to stroll down to the Adriatic in an hour or so, taking advantage of the fact that I'm temporarily working in an exceptionally beautiful locale. Last night's sunset was sublime. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicts!! grrr) I don't believe that there is a difference between "most recognizable name" and "most common name". I am aware that Born2cycle does, but I believe this is discovered poetry; that is, I believe Born2cycle is finding distinctions in the text that were not in the mind of the text's author. Be that as it may, Naming conventions (common names) does, I believe, have broad community support, and it certainly should be linked from the main convention. And in fact it is: at the bottom of the "most recognizable name" section, there is a line that says: "Rationale and specifics: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)." Is this unsatisfactory? Do you believe that there is a distinction between "most recognizable" and "most common"? If so, is this distinction important? If so, is the distinction large enough to warrant treatment in separate sections? I for one would willingly see these two sections split out again, pending consensus on how to handle it, so long as the general thrust of the rewrite is retained. Hesperian 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You draw that distiction yourself when you move pages like Wineberry (New Zealand), surly you would argue that it is the most "most recognizable name" even if it is not the most common. --PBS (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I argue that the scientific name is both most recognizable and most common; and I think the "most common" name and the "most recognisable" name will pretty much always coincide, so long as "most recognizable" and "most common" are both assessed "by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." And most importantly, I think the distinction didn't exist in the minds of the people who wrote it. These were intended to be two ways of saying the same thing, and somehow a distinction was found, and some people argued to preserve that distinction. Hesperian 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW Hesperian what do you think is "the general thrust of the rewrite" --PBS (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articulation of principles rather than enumeration of rules. Hesperian 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, hi! This conversation moves fast, so I may have missed it, but I still haven't seen an example of what the hell the contentious sentence is actually about. Can anyone tell me about a specific article whose title would change depending on whether that sentence is considered to be "in effect"? Please? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a number of things (which combined cause problems like the removal of common name from the general guidance) another is s phrase that has crept in the last day or so "while others contain additional conventions by subject area. " -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? What is remotely contentious about that phrase? Isn't it just a statement of fact? Can it be phrased better?--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy, does that ever not answer the question I asked. Apparently nobody knows of any practical upshot of the sentence under debate. That's sad. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have AGAIN had to restore the sentence in question. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR ITS REMOVAL - and certainly no consensus across the community. I wonder why people are so anxious to remove this safeguard - particularly those who are currently trying to radically change the Naming conflict guidance without Consensus - and are using as their sole argument the so-called "contradiction" between these pages. One of the chief among these is Kotniski. Hesperian twists my words, when I bring this point up. Yes. This phrase IS important in the dispute Kotniski began on the other page - however it is equally important to maintain the clear position that Naming Conventions document valid exceptions to "Use common name."
 * If people are worried about turning the section back, into a rule by the phrasing, as Hesperian claims to be, we can alter the phrasing slightly, BUT IT NEEDS TO STATE CLEARLY that the Naming Conventions provide valid exceptions to "use common name." However trying to make a major policy change without cross-community consensus in the manner some seem to want to, is invalid.   Xan  dar   20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no living human has the power to change policy by editing words on a page here. Until you understand that, I'm going to keep repeating it. Editing policy pages does not change policy. Policy exists out there in the world. This page is a more-or-less accurate reflection of that. If you understood this, you'd stop edit-warring, and take a more calm approach to this issue. Do that. I note that you still fail to provide any practical upshot of this sentence that seems so important to you. Is this because you are unable, or because you are ignoring the question, or is it something else? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GTBachhus, I wish you'd give your advice to Kotniski and his allies - who keep saying that WP:Naming conflict has to be changed because it "Contradicts" this policy. Then he changes this policy to eliminate the point that refutes his argument. If this page is so unimportant - then why is there such sudden anxiety and determination to change it without proper discussion and consensus? And I am not the one edit-warring. I am restoring the long-term policy as re-affirmed just weeks ago, that Naming Conventions provide exceptions to the general policy. The people edit-warring are thoise who keep re-applying a non-consensus and substantive change to this policy without the required community-consensus. That is what is against Wikipedia policy and practice. Perhaps you will now tell them to stop?
 * As to the practical "upshot", the attempt to change the naming convention already referred to, using this very paragraph by some of the people proposing the change here is practical enough. What more do you require? Also I would like to ask the reason for the urgent desire to remove this sentence that has stood for so long.  Xan  dar   20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you not noticed that I'm singing the same song to everyone here? You're not special; don't worry. What I'm looking for, and what I've asked for repeatedly without any response is an actual name of an actual article that would change based on the inclusion or exclusion of the controversial sentence. Show me the MF'n money, already! What page in the encyclopedia depends on this sentence? Just give me one (1), and you'll have done infinitely more than anybody else. The idea that you're not edit warring if your reverts resemble the past is asinine. Reverting anything repeatedly is edit warring even if consensus is on your side, which in this case is not at all clear. In an edit war, both sides are edit warring. This is trivial stuff; where have you been, man? The stupid anxiety that you ask about comes from people believing in the stupid superstition that editing these pages is a form of stupid word-magic that changes reality. It's cancer if you say it, and it's cancer if anyone else says it. If you think I'm just picking on you, then you're not paying attention. I've made this same point tonight to a half-dozen different people. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll give you some examples. This particular paragraph is talking about exceptions provided by the various naming convention pages. The disputed text reads roughly: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions indicate otherwise, use the most common names etc.," Removing the clearly stated exception of the Naming Conventions, allows it to be argued that A) The individual naming conventions should be changed to wholly prioritise "Use common names" above other specific considerations. (That was specifically added to this re-write at one point.) and B) The basic policy trumps the Naming Conventions. Therefore, the name of articles concerned with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be moved to those using the more Common, but often offensive name Mormon Church. The article currently at First Nations, should on that basis be moved to Canadian Indians, since that is the more commonly used although more offensive term. Similar issues arise with Dalits, Romany, Indigenous Australians etc, all of which use self-identifying rather than "common" names, which are either inaccurate or offensive. Republic of China is not the "most common name" for Taiwan, but it is used because it is what the nation calls itself. There is also Kolkata vs Calcutta, Ho Chi Minh City v Saigon. The issue of recent changes of names is also affected, since it takes some time for "reliable sources to reflect a change of name of an entity or individual. There are similar issues in other fields such as Biology. The disputed sentence helps prevent unecessary misunderstandings and quarrels over these issues, clearly derogating many of them to the naming conventions.   Xan  dar   21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I thank you. I agree that Kolkata should not be moved to Calcutta, despite the commonness and recognizability of the latter. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We use Kolkata, as WP:NCGN says, on the basis of two arguments; that Indian English is a national variety of English, and that the Indian usage is predominantly Kolkata.


 * As far as I can tell, there has been no evidence of the second, aside from the fervor of some Indian editors; but it may well be true all the same. Such a claim seems to be false of some Indian cities, which is why we still use Bangalore, not Bengaluru, despite the self-identification by the city government.


 * The first involves the usual ENGVAR reasons: that it is silly to switch from one variety to another; and that our readers about Calcutta are likely to be predominantly Indian (and so be used to Kolkata). Again, there does not appear to be any evidence for the last statement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ENGVAR is about English usage rather than naming - and if it were to cover naming, it would merely be a roundabout way of saying "use self-identifying names" in certain national contexts. That would mean that a self-identifying name could be used in a country held to have a "national variety" of English, like Indis, but not in another, like, say, Vietnam. The simple fact is that self-identifying names are used across Wikipedia - and will continue to do so, since it is the most efficient and least-offensive way of naming many articles, ensuring they are accurate, avoiding uneccessary disruption and keeping articles up to date with a rapidly changing cast of people, organisations and places.  Xan  dar   21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, if you don't want the general convention to be able to overrule specific conventions, you've already won. That is, we 've already won. The general convention has been largely rewritten over the last few days. Before, it was a set of rules that the specific conventions must conform to or be damned. Now it is a set of principles that the specific conventions embody. This means far more freedom and flexibility for the specific conventions.
 * Copied from User talk : Xander:

So you're actually bidding against yourself by continually reinstating that sentence. By removing it, we are demoting "use the most easily recognized name" from a rule that cannot be broken by a specific convention without good reason, to merely one of several principles that the specific conventions should take into account. In restoring it, you strengthen that clause, making it more binding on specific conventions, not less. I know that sounds odd; please, think upon it.

Hesperian 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this precise section is being used by Kotniski and others at WP:Naming conflict in an attempt to push a change removing the self-identifying names section of the convention, alleging "contradiction" with policy. The keenness to remove the proviso has a lot to do with that agrument, and that view of the Conventions. As I see it the "protection" of the individual conventions in the new wording is "soft" and subject to interpretation, while the phtase in question is "hard", and less easy to wikilawyer.  Xan  dar   11:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It turns out that removal is supported by Philip Baird Shearer, Kotniski, GTBacchus, Born2cycle and myself—five editors who rarely agree about anything. I don't know which of these are involved in your other dispute, but the assertion that removal is motivated by that dispute is demonstrably wrong. I've removed it again. Please let us know how else we might make the convention reflect your take on consensus. Hesperian 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two named are heavily involved in the dispute. And I'm afraid that you five DO NOT compose the cross-project consensus needed to radically change policy in this way. So please do not keep reverting your non-consensus change to policy. If a change this big is to made it needs to be considered by all concerned in the community.  Xan  dar   20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then file an RFC already. Remember to word it neutrally. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made this edit, because this is the naming conventions page (and policy) The others are guidelines to the policy. There is no point have a set of conventions which lay out the policy, and then having wording that will allow any guideline to completely contradict the policy page. I strongly suggest that we put back the wording based on WP:policies and guidelines that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence." -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that is the point in dispute, PBS, and You and your allies are the ones who are suddenly so determined to change the policy without consensus. Therefore the principle stands until it is overturned by consensus.  Xan  dar   16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)