Wikipedia talk:Naming policy poll/FAQ

I think this is a bit extreme. While I generally agree with the current policy, I think the FAQ should make clear that the decisions of governments to change the official name often do lead to usage changes, as with, say, the change from Constantinople to Istanbul in 1930, or from Persia to Iran in 1935, or Peking to Beijing at some point I'm not quite sure on. Relatedly, I'd suggest that name changes are different from changes in whether and how to translate or transliterate a name. john 21:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I considered talking about difference that on the main page, but thought it would just make things too complicated. I do see a difference between Zaire->Congo/Constantinople->Istanbul and Kiev->Kyiv/Calcutta->Kolkata (as the first two are "we've changed the name of our country/city" and the others are "we don't like the way you anglicize the name of our city, so do it this way"), but I don't think it makes much difference to the question, as we should still use "most common name in English". "North Korea", for instance, isn't even an attempt to anglicize "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and yet it's the name of our article, and similarly with "Greece"/"Hellenic Republic". If France decided tomorrow to have a communist revolution and renamed itself "the Democratic Popular Republic of Northern Europe" the vast majority of people would probably continue to call it "France" (as "Northern Europe" isn't a reasonable short form and "DPRNE" is too hard to say), and though our governments and the UN would call it DPRNE in official documents I see no reason why the article shoudn't stay at the name used by most people. Yes, some changes have happened in the past, but I don't think they should be used to preempt any future changes that might come about. Proteus 21:37, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To some extent, yes. But if France changed its name to the Democratic People's Republic of Gaul, I imagine that it wouldn't take all that long for people to start calling it Gaul (see similar cases like Persia>Iran or Siam>Thailand). Or if Japan declared that the anglicization of its name is to be Nippon. I suppose the question is "How do we determine what the predominant English usage is?" and "What if there is no clearly predominant English usage?" What are we to do, as with the Indian case, where local English usage (certainly in the Indian anglophone media, for instance) varies from worldwide English usage, which uses the older forms? It's quite complicated... john 04:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should do what we always do, and use world-wide English usage. The Indian media, even if some of them are anglophone, shouldn't have special status just because Calcutta is in India. Wikipedia is meant for world-wide English speakers, and I see no reason to ignore the name most of them use for the city purely because English speakers in one country use another name. Proteus 08:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looking through Google News, I note that the Calcutta Telegraph, that is to say, the newspaper which is, at least by its own account, the largest English language newspaper of West Bengal, refers to the city as Calcutta. john 18:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As the intro of the project page states "This FAQ represents the opinions of some Wikipedians who support the current policy, and is not in itself official Wikipedia policy" (my italics), I think it is only fair to put a POV notice at the top. Elf-friend 11:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the notice in the intro is sufficient. And it's not an article, it's a FAQ in the Wikipedia namespace. Nohat 17:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "What about name changes which are instituted by an illegitimate government against the wishes of those who live there? Presumably we wouldn't want to use those names, but if we institute an "official name" policy, we would either have to use the undesirable name or have to put ourselves in the business of deciding which governments are legitimate and which are not. The current policy is the best policy because it avoids getting Wikipedia entangled in political debates." ... but Wikipedia isn't averse to stating that Joseph Kabila is the president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, thereby "deciding" that his government is legitimate? Should we in such a case only acknowledge him as the president once his name's Google count has surpassed that of his predecessor's? Elf-friend 22:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Google counts are only useful for determining names, not entities. Nohat 00:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google counts and Wikipedia names
You mean that the inclusion of entities are based on the de facto situation and not their Google count? Fair enough, but why have a different policy for names, then?

My point of view is that Google counts (as sole criteria) are not useful for determining names either. It seems to me that the current interpretation of what is the most popular name is equivalent to a programming language command: IF (Google count of name A > Google count of name B) THEN (Keep name A) UNTIL (Google count of name B > Google count of name A).

I find this an extremely simplistic way to approach this issue, for the following reasons (among others):
 * It does not take into account how current the web-sites that are being counted are - they may date from before the name change and have not been updated since.
 * It does not take into account the "quality" of the websites counted. Surely it makes more sense to give more weight to websites such as those of (for example) the CIA or Encyclopedia Brittanica than some random website that may not even pertain to the subject?
 * It does not take into account the fact that, due to the widespread "re-use" or quoting from of certain sources such as news agencies or Wikipedia, one instance of use may actually be replicated and counted many times over.
 * It does not take into account whether the name has received official recognition from institutions such as national governments or the United Nations.
 * It does not take into account what the official name of the place is. Agreed, it should not be the only criterium, but it is equally bizarre that it should be completely ignored.
 * It ignores precedent for similar cases (such as other Indian cities, in this case).
 * It ignores the usage trend of the new name. In the Kolkatta case, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the ratio has changed from 1:2 at the time of the "old poll" to 1:1.8 currently. Is it really necessary to change the name only at the exact second that the Google count of the "new" exceeds the old?
 * It does not take into account what the geographic distribution of the Google counts are. What if (for example) the USA uses name A and the rest of the world name B, but the Google count of name A is still higher, because of Internet demographics (the words "defense" and "defence" are a good example)? Who "wins"? I know there's a policy that says any national English spelling is acceptable - why doesn't that apply in this case? Or does it only apply to US/UK spelling differences and the rest of the (English speaking) world are second-class citizens?
 * It does not take into account the systemic bias of the Internet. In this specific case, while India is a technologically advanced country, it does not nearly have as good an Internet penetration as Western Europe or North America, leading to an "underreporting" of the actual use of the name.

Really, Wikipedians (on average) are a fairly intelligent bunch - we should come up with a fairer system that takes these things into account than just using Google. But there isn't, so we are stuck with Google, you say? Actually, there is another system: polls such as the one that is being conducted for Kolkata/Calcutta at the moment - where real human beings can look at the issue while taking the above-mentioned factors into account. After all, if Wikipedia policy could be reduced to a number of computer-like instructions, we would not need polls like the Kolkata/Calcutta (or pages like Votes for Deletion, for that matter).

But that would require people to vote for a specific case on its specific merits, and not voting because they view it as a policy or issue matter. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the "Oppose" votes in the Kolkata/Calcutta are not drawing that distinction.

Elf-friend 21:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)