Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Proposal/Draft

Thoughts
I'd like to see the principles include Disambiguations and Redirects as they are a key function in the way articles are named. Additionally in the accessability section it has ''Article titles should be accessible to as many readers as possible. This principle is often phrased as "use the most common name" or "use the most easily recognised name". Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what reliable sources in English call the subject my emphasis, I think this should say Article titles should be accessible to as many readers as possible. This principle is often phrased as "use the most common name" or "use the most easily recognised name". Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what english language reliable sources call the subject''. Gnangarra 08:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see disambiguations and redirects as tools, or perhaps a different class of page, rather than distinct values. Disambiguation is treated in the Precision section; how would you do it differently? Yes, there probably needs to be more mention of redirects. I've taken a note of your other points; will work on them. Hesperian 10:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * what about a name change for the Precision section to say Precision and Ambiguarty Gnangarra 14:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a plug at incoprorating redirect into the piece about gulliviers travel Gnangarra 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A lesson from history
Before you spend too much time on this development, I suggest that if you are not already familiar with the saga of WP:ATT you read those archives.

It starts with a number of well known, well meaning editors, deciding that things would be clear if WP:V and WP:OR were combined into WP:ATT. They beavered a way for sometime and then implemented the change. That is when there was an explosion (see this section as it describes some of the paces where the proposed change was advertised). Roughly speaking talk archives 1-11 document the development and 12 onwards the implementation, poll and then roll back.

Personally I was neither for or against the merger, and although I thought that merging and changing the meaning of the content at the same time was a mistake, I did not take part in the Poll. Once if had failed I campaigned to get its status clarified as it was a source of confusion.

I can think of no reason why your proposal might not succeed, (although to date I have yet to be convinced that the proposed replacement is better than the current implementation) but for such a large change you will need to a very wide range of views to give such a large change any form of legitimacy. --PBS (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Atribution failed because it was a fundamental shift in how we do things it gave credance to fringe theories, proven falsehoods and outright lies providing they could be attributed to a published source. This is just documenting how and what is already happening. Gnangarra 14:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)