Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (names)

Names, Asian and European
TakuyaMurata just added a style recommendation to use European naming convention for Asian names, even in kanji. Call me sentimental or backwards, but I must say, I like the Asian way of going from big to small. It is a wonderfully consistent system that encompasses everything from date/time to addresses. Maybe Murata-san was just accommodating. I think it would be more confusing if we reverted the kanji, because my impression is that this is unusual, but of course he should have the last word on this. All I can say is that for someone with a basic idea of Kanji it is not a problem to reverse them in mappin one to the other. It would be a trifling compromise in deference to a great cultural heritage. Sebastian 07:00 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed it. Here is what was added:


 * Stick to the first then last name order. It is common in English writing. For example,


 * Basho Matsuo (&#33453;&#34121; &#26494;&#23614;, 1644 - November 28, 1694)


 * The Japanese characters should correspond to the order of an anglicized name. While it seems weird, it is much less confusing.

It seems to me that this is at odds with the anligcisation naming convention, which says to give things the name most commonly used in English. In the case of Basho, I believe this would mean Matsuo Basho, not Basho Matsuo; and in general, it means we can't have a hard and fast rule about whether to put given names first or second. We put them wherever they are most usually put. That's the right way to do things, I think. --Camembert

First of all, this problem is so difficult to make a standard. I am totally aware that people often put Matshu Basho or Miyazaki Hayao. In fact, Google returns "Basho Matsuo" with about 2000 pages and "" But in the same time,


 * I am sorry I did without any suggestion. I concluded that first of all, this is English encyclopedia then stick to English convension. For me, as native Japanese, &#33453;&#34121; &#26494;&#23614; looks extremely odd. But the basic principle is a least surprise and common standard. I bet the majority of English speakers assume when they see "Matsuo Basho" Matsuo is the first name. How about Japanese character order? Again this is English encyclopedia. If someone sees,


 * Basho Matsuo (&#33453;&#34121; &#26494;&#23614;)


 * he/she probably thinks &#33453;&#34121; is Basho. It is confusing that the order in the real name is different in the English name.


 * Also there is another much difficult problem. What about Chinese name? What about Arabic name? I have no idea at all. But we have to settle a convension as soon as possible. -- Taku 16:35 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

How can people argue about this? Spell Matsuosan's name correctly in Kanji. Spell it in English the way it is most commonly encountered in English. Don't put up a foreign translation that is nonsense. We don't translate the sentence Matsuosan wa uchi kaerimashita as Matsuo-Mr., I'm talking about, house returned and we don't translate Mr. Matsuo returned home as San matsuo kaerimashita uchi. Anyone who thinks they can guess which part of the name is pronounced how deserves to be confused.

For the record, Magyar names such as Liszt Ferenc are generally both inverted and Anglicized&mdash;into Franz Liszt. And pronounced incorrectly, too. Is this good? There is no ideal way to handle the problem since you have to overcome centuries of English chauvinism and habit. After all, Matsuo is his first name, it's just not his personal one. The subtle solution is to simply name a relative or two, or name his family, and suddenly the problem goes away. the librarian


 * Matsuo is his surname, last name, unless you advocate the first name in Japanese should be the surname. I think you don't understand what is the problem anyway. I am talking about the order of first name and last name. That is it. Spelling doesn't matter at all since Japanese don't spell Japanese in English alphabet. But the core of problem is how to make sure what is his/her surname (family) and his/her first name (given name) and distinguish the birthname, pseduate-name, adult name, pet name and so on.


 * First of all, we have to understand that there is no such a nice solution. If there is, many of encyclopedias or dictionaries already emploies it. But the reality is, they have always trouble naming/labeling people, particulary in foreign that stuff is disastrous. Actually Japanese name is less troublesome than Chinese name or other complex ones.


 * So then, we have to compromise in some way. My proposal is a compromise. The problem is again, if the majority of those who don't know who the hell Basho is see the name Matsuo Basho. They confuse Matsuo as the first name simply because they assume the name is in order that the first name followed by the last name. It really doesn't matter what the real name is in the title of the article.


 * Yes, but if somebody who does know who Basho is sees him listed as "Basho Matsuo", they'll find that surprising, and probably think it is a mistake. We already have a convention on this anyway, at Naming conventions (anglicization), which says to use the form most commonly used in an English-language context. Sometimes this means putting the family name first, sometimes it means putting it second. This applies to Chinese names and others as well. --Camembert


 * Then the second problem, which is more subtle and almost invisible to majority of wikipedians. That is &#33453;&#34121; is basho or matsho? Unless the order corresponding to the English name, you cannot be sure which one is which.


 * This is a bit troublesome, I admit. I tend to think they should be given in their native order, no matter what order the English names are given in, but this does lead to a little trouble. I'm not sure it's a very serious problem, because I think there will be very few readers indeed who will care about which part is "Matsuo" and which part is "Basho", but I agree it's awkward. I'm not sure how best to handle this, but I'm pretty sure we should follow above-mentioned convention when deciding what form of the name to use in English. --Camembert


 * I disagree because the encyclopedia should be for general audience but not only for those who care. -- Taku 18:26 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should give up puuting the real name for Japanese because it so confuses readers and the problem providing misinformation always outweights the benefit of important information.

Yes, my proposal has a conflict with Naming conventions (anglicization). That's for sure Matshuo Basho is more common than Basho Matshuo.

Actually I started to think there is a foundamental question, what name is anyway, what is the first name, and what is the last name. Names are not as simple as we expect usually. For example, Murasaki-shikibu is an author of Genji monogatari. But her name is just a title, like chief officer of department of culture. Murasaki is not the first name nor the last name, so is shikibu not. I wanted to make things less confusing. But names are confusing in the first place. It is impossible to have a standalized form for naming, like the first name is followed by the last name. I think I agree with to stick to Naming conventions (anglicization).

Names & Acronyms

 * The first time you introduce a person, use the person's most common complete name. Thereafter, use their family name.  For example, say Ronald Reagan the first time, then Reagan thereafter.  Or, say Vicente de la Fox the first time, then Fox thereafter.  It is unneccessary to say Vicente Fox Quezada except for in the article on Fox himself, as that is not the common form of his name.
 * The first time you introduce an acronym, spell out the acronym in full, followed by the acronym in parentheses. For example, Central Processing Unit (CPU).  Thereafter, you may use the acronym.


 * What about situations where the acronym is more common than the full term? Should we do CPU (Central Processing Unit) and IBM (International Business Machines)? To me, using the acronym first and expanding it in parentheses makes it apparent that the writer isn't just abbreviating a long-winded term. Mrwojo 05:50 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

A commonly-used acronym should have an article to itself anyway (or rather, a redirect to an article). I think it's fine to write only "CPU" as long as the first instance is linked "CPU". So I would say either link the first acronym, or explain it: "IBM (International Business Machines)" (bad example, since that one in particular should be IBM but I can't think of another acronym...) Tarquin 13:18 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)


 * There are also "disappeared acronyms and initialisms", like SAT which has been declared meaningless by its owner, YMCA, which no longer expands to Young Men's Christian Association, or JayCee, which no longer expands to Junior Chamber of Commerce. In those cases, the article should note the origin of the acronym or initialism, but not use the expansion as the title.


 * In all other cases, it makes sense, and is the most common publishing practice, to say "International Business Machines (IBM)". (My father called computers "IB Machines" in the 50s!")  I think it would be pretty rare for an acornym or initialism to deserve an article of its own in addition to the article about the expanded form., except for redirects, of course.
 * BTW, while we're on the subject:
 * Acronym -- pronounceable word formed from the letters or syllables of a phrase, such as radar or InterPol.
 * Initialism -- unpronounceable collection of initials, such as CIA or FBI.Ortolan88 17:04 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

I've been caught out. I hereby ban from Pedants' Corner for a period of one week. *hangs head in shame*. My basic point was that given a commonly-used acronym or initialism, we should be able to turn it into a link which the reader can follow for an explanation. (what the name of that explanation page is has probably been discussed and decided on Naming Conventions) -- Tarquin 17:11 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

-


 * Is there a consensus on "editable length"? If so, it should be mentioned in the Manual of Style.  People are so keen to break off tiny little chunklets, but some articles are still mighty long.
 * Since so many articles are biographies, maybe there should be a rudimentary section on biographies on the main page with a link to the rest.
 * Separate sections should all have (Manual of Style) in the title.
 * We really need much more about scientific style.
 * A separate section on tables would also be good.
 * Ortolan88 16:20 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Names of people - first names or surnames?
When writing about people, we obviously use their full name (+link) the first time it appears. EG "Saddam Hussein is a very naughty boy". However, later in the article is it correct to say "Hussein did bad stuff" or "Saddam did bad stuff"? I thought I saw advice to do the former, but I can't find it, and I can't recall what the reasoning was... Martin


 * Just my 2c. In general, use the more formal last name. But there are common sense exceptions - consider, for example, trying to write anout the Wright Brothers that way! Tannin


 * Well usually the surname. But in this case, "Saddam" is his surname; Hussein is his given name -- Tarquin 13:14 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Righto - thanks for the help :)

On the order of names
I'd like to propose that all names, in all languages, are given as [Family name] [comma] [Given name] in article titles (as, for example: Parker, Sarah Jessica). This would solve a lot of problems related to name orders which contradict the common English order of [Given name] [Family name]. Exploding Boy 21:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * How about just keep it in the order it should be in for all name orders, as there is nothing stopping us from doing that. That would make more sense, as thats what the peoples names really are. The [Family name] [comma] [Given name] seems like a real waste of the flexibility of wikis and computers in general. Also, I really like how articles about people are titled with their real name, and yet can be listed in categories under thier family name.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o


 * Nonsense, perfect, if you ask me. This is the Wikipedia, English.

Wetman 07:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Other than being entertained by Wetman, User, I think we have to consider how most people will access the information. I'm guessing that almost everyone would type "Sarah Jessica Parker" and almost no one would start with "Parker, Sarah Jessica". Which means we'd also have to add redirects for every name in its natural order--and I'm not sure that it makes sense to always have the redirect be the text that's most commonly accessed. Although I certainly appreciate the challenges in our culture's tendency to sort by last name even though the last name comes--um--last. Wreaks havoc in my personal address book, I'll tell ya.  Elf | Talk 18:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exploding Boy might try looking up Family name and see what a mess his system would create. To begin with, not everyone has a family name. There are numerous incompatible systems of nomenclature, present and past. What benefit if the article on Hamlet were renamed to, Hamlet and the article on Henry VIII was renamed to Tudor, Henry, VIII or something similar and the article on Björk was renamed to , Björk, Guðmundsdóttir or something similar? Jallan 21:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason I brought it up is largely because there has been an ongoing dispute regarding the order of Japanese names (and, to a lesser extent, Chinese and Korean names), which are normally given, in their respective languages, as FN-GN. Right now on Wikipedia, some names are given in GN-FN order, some are given as FN-GN, and probably a variety of other ways as well.


 * The argument about redirect pages is answered easily: Wikipedia is not paper.


 * The argument about single names (eg: Cher, Hamlet, etc) or people without family names is specious. Clearly single names don't require a comma.  There's nothing wrong with Tudor, Henry, VIII, and since Björk is her first name, the article would be titled Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, not the other way around (though it's debatable whether an article on Bjork really needs to include her last name in the title at all).


 * It's quite simple really:


 * articles on people with single names or who are best known by only one name would be titled with that name (thus, Madonna, not Ciccone, (Esther) Madonna Louise Veronica)
 * articles on people well known by both names would be FN, GN (as Clinton, Bill)
 * Articles on people whose name includes some embedded title would be in the normal order (thus Atilla the Hun, not Hun, Atilla the)


 * This is both encyclopaedic and bibliographical style, and it would quickly solve a lot of problems with name order. Exploding Boy 15:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * No this doesn't solve problems. It creates many new ones. Forcing use to move 10,000's of articles, requiring redirects from GN FN to the new format, etc. This is a very old established convention and there is no need to change it. Foreign name formats have been handled at Naming Conventions. Rmhermen 16:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. Among other things, this makes the situation for other languages where given name comes second even worse. Will we have Mao, Zedong? john k 16:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The only possible reason for quoting personal names in this fashion is to allow them tp be sorted into, or looked up in, alphabetical order. Wikipedia is not paper and there is therefore no enforced order: you could produce an article List of People sorted by the third letter of their middle name if they have one or else not if you really wanted and this would produce, if not a helpful article, an interesting insight into the processes of your mind (just as this particular edit is an insight into mine at this tag-end of an&hellip;interesting Friday). You would then be subject to merciless editing, or more likely instant targeting by the list-phobics, and your list would be gone. That's got to be enough, it's Friday, just go home for goodness' sake! --Phil | Talk 17:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Mao, Zedong is desirable if for no other reason than that people will then be aware that he was not Mr. Zedong, just as Koizumi Junichiro isn't Mr. Junichiro and Kim Il-sung isn't Mr. Il-Sung. Exploding Boy 22:15, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not only is this idea blatantly bad, but it contradicts our policy about locating the article at the most common english name. &rarr;Raul654 22:17, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, another constructive post from Raul. Exactly why is it "blatantly bad," Raul?  And how does it contradict the policy?  People would still be under their most commonly used name, they'd just be listed in a more encyclopaedic and all-round more user-friendly style, because EVERYONE would be listed family name-first, rather than just a few people.  Exploding Boy 22:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * This idea is blatantly bad because


 * 1) You're talking about moving tens of thousands of articles, which realistically is never going to happen (and if you tried, you'd never get them all). And then of course there's the little matter of getting people to write new articles at family name, given name which is also never going to happen. Oh, and good luck trying to get everyone else to agree to it. (because if you think I'm being stubborn, you haven't seen anything yet)
 * 2) Our policy is that: "Generally, article naming (IE, where the article is located) should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - Harry Truman is quite a bit more obvious than Truman, Harry - it's almost more recognizable. This proposal violates our naming policy.
 * 3) If you want to link to someone now, you have to use Harry Truman instead of simply Harry Truman . All instances of Harry Truman now point to a redirect.
 * 4) On the other hand, what exactly do we gain by creating this mess for ourserlves? The vast majority of our biographical articles use the western custom of given name, family name. So for the vast majority of our biographic articles, this policy only creates problems. &rarr;Raul654 22:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just one comment: people with a patronymic but without a family name are normally sorted on their first name, thus Björk Guðmundsdóttir, not Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, even in cases where other names are sorted with family name first. (As a matter of fact, the entire Icelandic phonebook is sorted according to first name.) However, I wouldn't trust most contemporary, Anglophone contributors on Wikipedia to recognize the difference between a patronymic and a family name, and if the unnecessarily complicated way of writing "last name" first would be implemented, names with a patronymic will no doubt often be written in the wrong order. //up+land 06:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As this is the English Wikipedia, we would sort them in the English usage, not the Icelandic. That is, patronymic as a kind of last name and are sorted together with them. (However we still have trouble deciding on a sorting order for the Dutch van and German von names.) Rmhermen 14:30, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have an authoritative source for what English usage is in this case?//up+land 15:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears that Exploding Boy really wants to go with standard bibliographic style. That is somewhat more complex than always putting the family surname first. General bibliographic usage as been to generally list names by surname, followed by a comma, then by the other names, when the names are post-medieval names and when they are of European origin or names of those who have adopted European conventions or when the names have been adapted to fit European conventions. These modern surnames are sometimes patrynomics rather than family surnames. Names not fitting this convention are generally not re-ordered. Classical Roman names, for example, are not reordered. One normally does not see "Antonius Creticus, Marcus" rather than "Marcus Antonius Creticus" in an index. Where in modern usage surnames seldom appear, as with royal families of Europe, the names generally don't appear ordered by surname in indexes. It would be extraordinary to find a book referring to Queen Elizabeth II of the UK and find her listed in its index under something like "Windsor, Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom, II".

An advantage of the traditional system is that it clarifies whether a surname is a modern family surname or a descriptive surname. If we come across "Marie d'Anjou" in an index, the reference is almost certainly to some pre-modern personage connected with the territory of Anjou, likely a member of its ruling family. If we come across "D'Anjou, Marie", the reference is almost certainly to a more modern person who happens to have the hereditary surname "D'Anjou". There is some small value in such a distinction, though it annoys indexers of books dealing with periods when hereditary family surnames were first coming into vogue.

But adopting the normal bibliographical system in Wikipedia would not at all solve a dispute over order of Chinese names. Under the traditional system someone knows immediately, by the presence of a comma, that in the case of "Dickens, Charles", for example, that "Dickens" is a surname and that in normal use the two elements are reversed. But coming across references like Hrólf Kraki, Vlad Tepe, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a reader unfamiliar with the name style or the persons knows nothing other than that, if there is a family name within any of these combinations, it is not marked by a comma. The only one of the above where we could reasonably make this clear though a comma is Mark Antony which we might reverse as Antony, Mark. For the rest, there is nothing to indicate whether "Hrólf", "Vlad", "Ho", "Julius", "Antiochus", and "Mao" are family names or not. In fact, of these, only "Mao" is a pure family name, "Julius" comes very close though the full family name was "Julius Caesar" (the given name "Gaius" being usually dropped in references to this particular personage).

One might use Mao, Zedong as Exploding Boy suggests. But the comma also indicates reversal and so indicates that in normal text we should see "Zedong Mao". That is incorrect. Placing a comma here would mislead. And that is not done in traditional usage. The dispute on particular names is because in environments derived from European culture the elements of Chinese names are indeed sometimes reversed. Should a Chinese name appear in reversed order or native order in an article title if it mostly appears in reversed order in English sources, as for example the name of a person of Chinese ancestry who is a native-born US citizen? Adopting normal bibliographic conventions in Wikipedia would now mean that the dispute would be instead about whether a comma should follow the family name rather than about the order in which the name elements should appear. The dispute would still exist. Exploding Boy's suggestion doesn't solve it at all.

Jallan 14:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are also quite a few names which do not slot nicely into a "FN,GN" format. Examples include Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who being Javanese has three names but no surname. Thai people do have given names and family names, but the given name is far more important and is used eg. to sort telephone directories. Jpatokal 02:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)