Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (foreign languages)


 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Foreign language spelling and usage
I've started a section on foreign language spelling and usage. I'm hoping people can add sections for many other languages. I'm also wondering about how place names should be listed. Köln is listed as Cologne and Sevilla as Seville but Beijing is not listed as Peking. Personally, I'd like to see every place in the world listed under the name used by the inhabitants of the place. --Samuel Wantman 06:36, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The former are english words for places... in the latter case, "Peking" is an obsolete romanization, not an english word. And "Beijing" is the accepted english term these days. And this is an english edition of wikipedia. My 2cents: put in redirects. which are already, as i check, for all three cases you complain about. --Random832 06:47, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)


 * PS do you want Beijing listed under "&#21271;&#20140;" instead? They certainly don't spell it "B-e-i-j-i-n-g" there. --Random832


 * Of course there still is the more subtle point that maybe we should spell things according to the romanizations worked out by the speakers of those languages, and I think we should at least require that "the name used by the inhabitants of the place" be mentioned, bolded, after the article title. Hyacinth 07:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * And that is done in the first sentence. --Random832 22:55, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * According to Manual_of_Style: "When writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use, self identification." Hyacinth 07:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't read that as meaning there is a requirement to use foreign-language terms for groups (even less places) that primarily speak foreign languages. This is an english-language edition of wikipedia. --Random832 22:55, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

Let me just point out that en: has restrictions on what can be used as a title (see Template:Wrongtitle for instance), and so you're largely limited to ASCII. Since native English spelling doesn't use non-ASCII characters (except for the weird ones that template is designed for, like C++ for instance), we're okay making titles English names. We wouldn't be able to make an article entitled &#21271;&#20140; in en:, though. Even if we could do all the non-ASCII names, though, I don't believe we should have an article on Sverige in en:; I do believe that we should have an article on Sweden that mentions Sverige in the first paragraph, with redirects from that name (which is exactly what we do). --TreyHarris 01:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting, i think, that none of the characters listed at the link from Wrongtitle, least of all '+', are "non-ASCII characters" by any stretch of the imagination. --Random|832 12:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Foreign language usage and spelling
''The section I wrote was reverted almost instantaneously, so I'm putting it here. I think there needs to be a section on foreign language spelling and usage because it is being done many different ways. Here's what I wrote...''

(This needs more work -- please contribute!)
 * Foreign language usage in an English article should in most cases use the common spelling and punctuation currently in use in the country of origin for the word.
 * When foreign language words have become part of the English language, the English spelling should be used.
 * Titles of books, movies, and other media mentioned in articles should be first listed in their native spelling as published. An English translation in parenthesis should follow.  For example:
 * &#1041;&#1088;&#1086;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1077;&#1094; &#1055;&#1086;&#1090;&#1105;&#1084;&#1082;&#1080;&#1085; (Battleship Potemkin) : for many years generally considered the greatest film ever...
 * Articles about foreign language books, movies, and other media should be created using the translation of the name.  The beginning of the article should have the name in the foreign language using the native spelling as published.
 * Books, movies and other media that were renamed for their English publication or distribution should be created using the name they are best known by. There can also be a redirect from the literal translation.  For example: Ladri di biciclette, the 1948 Italian film should be listed as The Bicycle Thief and not by the more accurate translation Bicycle Thieves.
 * Once a word is introduced in a foreign spelling, its translation or transliteration can be used instead of the native spelling whenever it makes the article easier to read (such as the Battleship Potemkin example above).

The manual of style already explicetely says to "Use the most common english name" - this was reaffired by the recent policy poll. Your proposed changes go against this, and therefore do not belong. &rarr;Raul654 23:03, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree... Every single one of the proposed changes as apply to article titles are a restatement and clarification of "Use the most common english name". it's a naming policy poll, not a linking policy poll or mentioning policy poll. --Random832 23:08, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

Also, as far as putting foreign language names first - I disagree. First, it's been longstanding poliy to put the english name outside (this *is* the english wikipedia) and put the foreign language name in parenthesis (if the contributor happens to know, which may not be the case). Second, putting it in parenthesis makes it optional, because most of our contributors probably won't know this. &rarr;Raul654 23:27, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Arabic

 * In an Arabic name, the format is as follows:

AAA bin BBB (or AAA ibn BBB) (male)

AAA binti BBB (or AAA bte BBB) (female)

where 'AAA' is the first name and 'BBB' is the father's name. The word bin means "son of"; likewise, binti means "daughter of". For example, Mahathir bin Mohamad is the name of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia. In the article, he is referred to as Mahathir.

Indonesian

 * Current Indonesian spelling should be used instead of the older colonial Dutch spelling. For example: Canting instead of tjanting.
 * The old spelling should be included at the beginning of the article. For example:
 * Kecak (also Ketjak) a form of Balinese music drama, originated ...

Japanese

 * See: Naming conventions (Japanese)

Korean

 * See: Naming conventions (Korean)

Other

 * See: Use other languages sparingly.

Discussion
I'm glad this is on the talk page now. It's true we could use more specific guidelines for foreign language use, but many points of this go against the already-established guideline to use the most common names in English to refer to a subject in its article title (although the native language version definitely needs to be in the first paragraph of the article, and probably also made a redirect to the article). This is, after all, the English language version of the Wikipedia. Even if, for example, it were possible under the software to make article titles in Cyrillic (which it's currently not) it wouldn't be appropriate here any more than using the Roman alphabet would be on ru.wikipedia. - Hephaestos|&#167; 15:36, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Hephaestos, couldn't resist: see TCP/IP, for instance. :-) --TreyHarris 16:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps what I have written is not clear. But, I am not saying that there should be non-english article names. To use The Bicycle Thief as an example, in an article that references the movie, such as Cinema of Italy, it should say:


 * "De Sica wrote and directed together with scenarist Cesare Zavattini: among all, Sciuscià (Shoeshine - 1946), Ladri di Biciclette (The Bicycle Thief, 1948) and Miracolo a Milano (Miracle in Milan, 1950)..."

The article about the movie should be listed as The Bicycle Thief. There should be a redirection from "Ladri di Biciclette" and "Bicycle Thieves". The top of the article about The Bicycle Thief should say:


 * "Ladri di biciclette (Literal translation: Bicycle Thieves, but known by the name The Bicycle Thief) is a 1948 Italian neorealist film about a man who..."


 * The literal translation isn't needed anywhere besides the beginning of the article.
 * The common English name is the one that titles the article.
 * references to the article use the original name spelled out in the original language with the common english name in parenthesis.
 * --Samuel Wantman 20:32, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, in some parts of the world multiple foreign-language names may be relevant, and it is important to identify what language is being used. This arises, for example in place names in Transylvania (where both Hungarian and Romanian are almost always relevant, and sometimes German as well) or for monarchs who may have been called differently by their subjects who spoke different languages (and differently again in English). -- Jmabel 00:36, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK. Here's an example from the academy awards for best foreign film. How should the films be listed. Like this?...

1964 Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Ieri, oggi, domani) (Italy) - Compagna Cinematografica Champion, Les Films Concordia - Carlo Ponti producer - Vittorio De Sica director
 * Raven's End (Kvarteret korpen) (Sweden) - Europa Film - producer - Bo Widerberg director
 * Sallah Shabbati (&#1505;&#1488;&#1500;&#1495; &#1513;&#1489;&#1514;&#1497;) (Israel) - Sallah Company, Sallah Ltd. - Menahem Golan producer - Ephraim Kishon director
 * The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Les parapluies de Cherbourg) (France) - Beta Film GmbH, Madeleine Films, Parc Film - Mag Bodard, Philippe Dussart producers - Jacques Demy director
 * Woman in the Dunes (&#30722;&#12398;&#22899;; Suna no onna) (Japan) - Teshigahara Productions, Toho - Kiichi Ichikawa, Tadashi Oono producers - Hiroshi Teshigahara director

or like this?...

1964 Ieri, oggi, domani (Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow) (Italy) - Compagna Cinematografica Champion, Les Films Concordia - Carlo Ponti producer - Vittorio De Sica director
 * Kvarteret korpen (Raven's End) (Sweden) - Europa Film - producer - Bo Widerberg director
 * &#1505;&#1488;&#1500;&#1495; &#1513;&#1489;&#1514;&#1497; - Sallah Shabbati (Israel) - Sallah Company, Sallah Ltd. - Menahem Golan producer - Ephraim Kishon director
 * Les parapluies de Cherbourg (The Umbrellas of Cherbourg ) (France) - Beta Film GmbH, Madeleine Films, Parc Film - Mag Bodard, Philippe Dussart producers - Jacques Demy director
 * &#30722;&#12398;&#22899; - Suna no onna (Woman in the Dunes) (Japan) - Teshigahara Productions, Toho - Kiichi Ichikawa, Tadashi Oono producers - Hiroshi Teshigahara director

or perhaps some other way? I think the second example is more respectful, and more accurate. The first example is probably easier to read. --Samuel Wantman 07:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The latter way is easy-enough to read, IMO (though I suppose it helps if you can parse romance languages). Definitely not the first form (it seems to encourage the idea that the 'real' name of the film is the English one, but it also happens to have another one in a foreign language.
 * James F. (talk) 13:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with putting the non-English name first, unless it is also commonly used in English. It is already standard practice in Wikipedia to do something more like the following:
 * The Bicycle Thief (original Italian title Ladri di biciclette, lit. "Bicycle Thieves") is a 1948 Italian neorealist film about a man who..."

This also corresponds nicely to it being located at The Bicycle Thief, as one would expect the article title to be the first major thing in the article. This is no different than any other issue of translation: we say "Munich (German M&uuml;nchen)" at Munich, not the other way around. --Delirium 07:22, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

The proposal deals mostly with the titles of books, movies and other media. There really isn't any consistancy about this currently in Wikipedia. People seem to do it whatever way seems right to them. I agree with the notion that the names of articles should be the most common way people refer in english to the subject. That makes sense because we want people to be able to find things. Sometimes the name isn't even English, like Mein Kampf or Rashamon, but they are known by these names, so it is O.K.

Once an article begins we are trying to educate people, and when it comes to works of Art, I think we should use the name created by the artist for the work. So the actual name of the work in the native language should come first with the transliterations, meanings and other English titles coming after.

I can go either way about places. But starting the article about Munich with the German name, makes a strong statement that the REAL name of the place isn't Munich at all, something most Americans don't realize. --Samuel Wantman 09:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it makes a strong statement, I don't understand why that's a statement Wikipedia needs to make. Currently it reads
 * Munich (German: München) is the state capital of the Bundesland Bavaria in Germany...
 * Right there it says they live in Germany, and the German language word is München. Would a reasonable person think that Müncheners speak English?


 * Just to insert my sixpence-worth, if I were to visit the French Wikipedia and go to their article on London, I would be totally unsurprised to discover the article to live at Londres and to start something like "Londres (en anglais: London)...". In fact, I'll pop over and have a look right now ... well, swope me, if I'm not just about word-perfect without even looking! On a french-language page, I would expect that the primary key would be in French; likewise on an english-language page I would expect the primary key to be in English. Sorry to interject a personal view but I think all these people arguing as to what should be the correct non-english term for something ought to take their arguments to the appropriate Wikipedia for that language and come back&mdash;when they've achieved consensus&mdash; and annotate (as opposed to replace) the english text with the result. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 15:41, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * A voice of sanity! Thank you! :) -- Tarquin 22:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia wants to take the POV that the current English name for this city is wrong, and should be changed to München (either as part of an ideology that all English names for foreign-language places are wrong and should be changed to the native, or on individual cases), then I agree, we should refer to München (English Munich) and &#1505;&#1488;&#1500;&#1495; &#1513;&#1489;&#1514;&#1497; - Sallah Shabbati. And if Wikipedia wants to take the POV that English is the universal language and should be encouraged worldwide, then we should bury those other language spellings deep in the article, as a footnote (and we should come up with a pure English title for Sallah Shabbati besides).


 * On matters of language, you unfortunately can't always be NPOV. You have to make a choice, even if that choice is resorting to circumlocutions because you're not comfortable with any of the direct choices.  We could say:
 * The city at 48&deg;8'N 11&deg;35'E (known to natives as München, in English as Munich) is the state capital...
 * but that's a wretched circumlocution, and in some cases even that isn't possible (how do you refer to authors in the past whose name was written differently than in English? By referring to their works?  Fine, but how do you refer to the works, assuming the works weren't in English?  By the authors?  At some point, you have to make a decision).


 * I think you've fallen to the seduction of the "correct". Language isn't about "correct," language is about matching signifier to sign, of providing a symbol that the audience will take for what you intended it as.  Munich does that job, for most of the audience.  München does not.  It is elitist to say that because of some notion of "correct," we should prefer the word that doesn't do the job to the one that does.  You may be able to glance at &#1505;&#1488;&#1500;&#1495; &#1513;&#1489;&#1514;&#1497; or &#30722;&#12398;&#22899; and immediately read it&mdash;though I can't, and I've taken an introductory class in Hebrew and years of Japanese; most of the Wikipedia audience won't be able to read it, either.


 * Showing a string of non-English characters does nothing for most readers but perhaps serve for a thrill of ethnographic spectacle ("gee, look at all those consonants jammed together, how do they say that?"). This is especially true in non-Roman languages, where the characters might as well be squiggles.  The primary audience for en: is English speakers.  As such, from a pure communicativity basis, the form should be something like:


 * English form (native Native form,  pronounced n&#604;yt&#616;v)...


 * Current practice as mentioned by others&mdash;use the English spelling, mention the native&mdash;is the democratizing one and the accessible one.  We should stick with it.  But please, in the name of accessibility, let's start adding more pronunciation guides, because if you don't know how &#30722;&#12398;&#22899; is pronounced, seeing those characters doesn't even let you read the article aloud... --TreyHarris 17:30, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize some of this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles) --Samuel Wantman 11:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inline lists of translated words
I want to comment on the formatting of lists of inline translations of words. Compare this, from the preceding topic:
 * Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house', domaine 'estate, property', and château 'castle'.

with this from the following topic on this page:
 * ...englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch).

The latter--parens instead of quotes without dividing punctuation--is much easier to scan, read, comprehend than the former, and that's the form I've been changing things to as I have found them. For example, History of the Scots language was almost unreadable until parens were used. Elf | Talk 15:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea – should be policy, although I'm not sure how often it pops up. Derrick Coetzee 02:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think such a policy is needed. For one thing, I doubt it's a common problem. Maurreen 04:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration of Cyrillic
I'm sure I saw a comment a while ago that several users who can just about read Cyrillic find the italicised forms difficult (as some of the italicised forms aren't immediately obviously the same character as their non-italicised forms). Naturally, now I want to re-read it, I can't find it, nor can I find anything in the Manual of Style.

I'd like to propose that we create a policy thus:


 * When transliterating Cyrillic words, the Cyrillic should not be italicised, but the Roman alphabet transliteration should be. Ideally, a translation into English should follow.

A possible addition might include a guide on how to iotised and palatised characters, such as &#1063; (Che), &#1064; (Sha), &#1065; (Shcha), &#1071; (Ya) and &#1025; (Yo). (Personally I'd suggest a há&#269;ek on the core consonant(s) &mdash; so &#269;, &#353;, &#353;&#269; &mdash; and a letter Y before a vowel &mdash; ya, yo).

Opinions? :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 21:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are pretty complete tables on de.wikipedia at de:Kyrillisches Alphabet, I assume you can make sense out of the tables even when not speaking German. They give a) scientific transliteration (with ISO variants where applicable) and b) german and c) englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch). Pjacobi 23:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * See also http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ru.pdf -- Pjacobi 15:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foreign Language Titles
I'd like some feed-back on a section I've put together on Foreing language titles at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles). I've been working on editing French language films and have found no consistancy to how people treat the names of foreign films. I'd like to get some consensus before I go around moving and changing everything. Thanks. --Samuel Wantman 10:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I concur with what you have there. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:46, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think articles ought to be under their native names hwen that is commonly known and used in English. E.g., Das Kapital not Capital and Mein Kampf not My Struggle but The Name of the Rose not Il nome della rosa.  Just my 2¢/&#8364;0,02 ;) &#8212;Tkinias 22:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is what I proposed, and I think it is already policy (though not always followed -- especially with French films). Was this not clear in what I wrote?  --Samuel Wantman 00:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Very good! I do think that greater emphasis should be placed on naming articles based on the common name of the film, whether it is in English or French or Elvish. (Not that I know any of the latter.) If it's well-known by the non-English name, then by all means, use it. When there are special alphabets involved, I tend to think that it's better to put something readable by most readers first and the correct form second (since it might not display properly on visitors' browsers anyway).
 * I've gone back and forth on which goes first. I think in the case of lists (like the academy awards)  the original foreign language name should go first.  Otherwise it may give the impression that the English name IS the orignal name.  Having lists done in a standard format for foreign languages will also help people get used to understanding what they are seeing in the lists.  If the names just appear in the text of the article, I want to leave it to the authors and editors to decide.  In some languages (like French and Italian) authors seem to like to use the orignal language first.  In other languages (like Russian and Chinese) authors appear to use the English titles first.  But I don't think this needs a hard and fast rule because there may be good reasons for doing it differently in a specific case.  --Samuel Wantman 00:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would recommend, in order to preserve peace, goodwill, and reasonable editing, choosing an example of a film with an other-than-literally-translated title that does not involve a U.S./UK distinction. That way your message can get across without excess baggage being attached. Winged Migration wouldn't be a bad choice (you could probably do better if you spent more than five minutes looking, though). There's no point in risking bringing nationalistic sentiments into this if we can help if. ;) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 23:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)