Manual of Style

This redirect falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This redirect falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Text moved in from Wikipedia:Village_Pump:

One more thing, can someone add something on ways to resolve disputes over placenames? Thanks. -- Viajero 15:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd work on this request. I looked about for a proper place to put it and came up somewhat empty. I suppose under the "Style" or "Edit" pages maybe? - Marshman 23:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) OK, I started a "Style" page for Proper names at Wikipedia:Proper_names. I'll work on it for awhile - fair bit of ground to cover - and others can, of course add ideas as they see fit - Marshman

See also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places) and its Talk page. Chris Jefferies 11:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra Um? Maybe not the STATE, but certainly the Mexican possession of California. What the heck is Alta Mexico? Maybe Alta California, anyway. RickK 04:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The point is: there is a correct historical name and it is not the U.S. State of California. You could edit it to the correct term, and that should not give rise to any disputes (one would hope ;o) - Marshman 17:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proper names of people, places, and species are taken care of, but that leaves any thing (as in "person, place, or thing") that has a proper name. For example, there is an ongoing debate about the name of the French national flag, which is known variously as "the tricolor", "the Tricolour", "(le) tricolore", etc. We could use some guidelines on "things" as well. -- Jeff Q 22:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Things are no different in this regard than "places" (which are in effect "things"). The French national flag would be "the Tricolor", as the term is referring to the name of a specific thing (like a specific person or place); "the tricolor" would be anything with three colors, as in "Gemany's flag, like most in Europe, is a tricolor". - Marshman 22:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If "things" should be treated the same as "places" in this regard, the article shouldn't distinguish between "place names" and "personal names". A "place" may be a "thing", but there are many "things" that aren't "places". Perhaps it should say "Names of people" and "Names of things", or "Names of other things" (the latter version following the species section)? Also, my research (see the above-mentioned French flag debate) suggests (but doesn't verify) that formal English usage has no officially-preferred term like "the Tricolor", although some Americans feel it should, just as some Britons feel that "the Tricolour" is the official English term. -- Jeff Q 00:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The operative word is "names" not persons, places, or things. I am not going to disagree with you; there is plenty of need for improvement in the article (when I get time, I'll attend to it if someone else does not first), but the rule is: whatever the noun is (and people, places, and things comes from the definition of a noun), it will take first letter capitalization if it is a proper noun—the name of something or someone. I have no idea what an "officially-preferred" term would be (in general, language does not work that way, although there might be official listings of geographical names), and yes Tricolor vs Triclour relates to American vs. Brit usage of English; but both start with uppercase 'T'. At Wikipedia (English Edition) both would be correct and may simply depend upon who wrote the article. The rule there is not to bother to change to your preferred spelling - Marshman 01:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I mean by "offically-preferred" is cited in a respected reference work, which I consider better than general guidelines that are often ill-recalled and frequently flouted in practice. (Consider the Wikipedia "article titles should be all lowercase except..." policy as an excellent example of an institutionalized flouting of standard practice, which is, incidentally, okay by me.) As an example, Merriam-Webster Online cites, among its entries for federal:

3 capitalized : advocating or friendly to the principle of a federal government with strong centralized powers; especially : of or relating to the American Federalists

4 often capitalized : of, relating to, or loyal to the federal government or the Union armies of the U.S. in the American Civil War

5 capitalized : being or belonging to a style of architecture and decoration current in the U.S. following the Revolution

This strikes me as a carefully-researched official statement on when to capitalize "federal". I made a modest search for such a reference for "Tricolore" but found only the lowercase version, with no explicit statement about its capitalization. Obviously, this is not definitive, but neither is any Wikipedia article, for that matter. Therefore, I edited the article to reflect the research I had done, which appears to have been more substantial, with respect to the spelling and capitalization of "tricolore", than other contributions to that article thus far.

By the way, I didn't mean to impune your efforts to date on this article. I just thought it'd be a good idea not to leave people hanging when they come looking for rules on something like "tricolore" or "the Federal Government", which are not people's names, place names, or biological designations. Please take whatever time you need to make any changes you think are advisable. If I really have a problem with it, I can and should do it myself, eh? ☺ -- Jeff Q 04:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy ;) or 8^0 . You explained things better this time. I think by "official" you really mean "authoritative". I'd regard Miriam-Webster as authoritative (providing an opinion based upon experience and research) but not "official", the latter implying establishing rules or providing opinion based upon granted authority ("I'm right because I'm the government"). I think it should be "Tricolor" just as one would say "Old Glory" and not "old glory" in referring to our flag. But maybe I'm old fashioned. I find "errors" in Webster's Dictionary on occasion. - Marshman 05:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, "new-fashioned" is often overrated. ☺ If I find an authoritative source that cites a use of "Tricolor" or "Tricolour" in the same proper-name fashion of "Old Glory", I'll capitalize them in a minute. -- Jeff Q 07:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i don't think there might be any divergence of opinnions on how a country names its administrative divisions. - there is that "non interference in internal affairs or something" that i think renders the name of an administrative unit immune to "neighbouring state version of a sovereign state's internal affairs or something" -- Criztu 28 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)

I removed the ß-directions. I feel somewhat bad about this since they were actually quite well written. But I don't see any discussion or vote establishing a consensus for this and opinions are clearly split, see Talk:Großglockner for example. Also note that the same logic could be used to legislate Þ out of Wikipedia - even though the consensus among those editing articles on Icelandic topics seems to be to use it. I would actually support Philip's recent note on including alternative ascii-versions but I think we should discuss it before we insert it into the guide. It was reverted where he inserted it on WP:UE. Paragraphs inserted on WP:UE and WP:MOS to ban ß, Ð and Þ have also been reverted (by myself and others). I would have reverted this incarnation of the ban earlier if I had noticed it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We actually had a pretty good consensus in the Manual of Style when I added that and still have a substantial majority, but German-lovers (non-Swiss, anyway), Icelandics (who, you can bet, don't allow foreign letters in their wiki), and a few others continue to treat English Wikipedia as an international wiki. Perhaps one day I'll join them in pretending that the English alphabet encompasses the entire Latin-1 character set and name my first-born child Æþöñéß. --Tysto 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool with the removal of the ß directions. I wrote them, actually, after Tysto brought the subject up and I saw myself in the minority. (I like ß, too!) However, since then there has been a lot more discussion and today I would be somewhat more of an ß-advocate, so I actually regret having done such a good job formulating a policy that I am not quite comfortable with. Thanks for removing my contribution! Incidentally, at the video store I saw an English DVD with music by Johann II Strauß that used the ß on the cover. If it's good enough for a mass-marked DVD then it's good enough for WP! Arbor 07:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal to make a Wikipedia naming convention about the "Thorn" (Þ} character, at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (thorn). Interested parties are invited to comment. Elonka 02:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Æþöñéß, incidentally ;), and support the use of ß and similar Latin alphabet characters. I'm here on a different note, though: Whether currencies (euro, Japanese yen, ...) are proper names or not. This should be discussed and implemented into this page. My take is that they most clearly aren't. —Nightstallion (?) 08:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in Alain de Cadenet, the source includes [[Category:1945 births|Cadenet, Alain de]].

I think that should be [[Category:1945 births|de Cadenet, Alain]].

A survey of the category, looking for similar names, suggests some people agree with me, but others do not. I have not yet found something to indicate which is preferred. Can someone point me to such, or should it perhaps be added here?

An idea I had was that names such as "de Cadenet" should be placed by the categorizer under both "C" and "D", and in the case of variants of "de", (d', di, du, etc) perhaps all those should be grouped in a special section before "D". Even leaving aside that that may not be theoretically (editorically) correct, it would involve some work, likely a lot . . . --SportWagon 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few partial answers to my own question. It turns out "De Cadenet" would be classified under "D", but "de Cadenet" gets classified under "d", in a category on the last page, containing only the single entry. That seems wrong. The Categorizer is using an inappropriate collating sequence. Before verifying that, I tried adding both variants, and the entry under "C" disappeared, and I found none under "D" (obviously, now). But during that test I did not look for the "d" heading. And I don't want to muddle the history further right now just to verify what actually happens(ed).--SportWagon 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no. I can say [[Category:1945 births|De Cadenet, Alain]] to force the alphabetization, but the entry title will be used in the Category listing, I believe. An example doing that is [[Category:1945 births|Du Pré, Jacqueline]] in Jacqueline du Pré--SportWagon 17:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people might be closer to where this information should be?--SportWagon 17:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete answer for me is now in Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting.--SportWagon 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that librarians and archivists have clarified and refined since the invention of library catalogues. There is a good discussion at Authority control. The authoritative source on the standard form for proper names in English is at the US Library of Congress (which is also followed by the British Library and most other English language libraries. Returning to the question at hand, the LOC gives the Established Heading as "De Cadenet, Alain" and lists "Cadenet, Alain de" as an alternative (not the Established Heading). To be honest, I was surprised by the result, but it's a good idea to follow a conventional authority in lists and article titles. --SteveMcCluskey 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That answer doesn't surprise me. Well, it surprises me a little that "Cadenet, Alain de" is given as an alternative. (I.e. at all)--SportWagon 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(proper_names)#Alphabetizing.2C_or_What_Is_The_Surname.3F below regarding a proposal for alphabetizing surnames with particles. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person where I work spells the surname as deRose. And since this person is an attorney, there are legal court papers file as deRose. Perhaps there should be indications that there are exception to the first letter is capitalized rule. --NYC 23:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are other people who spell their names like that. -Pgan002 01:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider bell hooks and danah boyd. Both spell their names with no capital letters, yet the bell hooks article has survived years with no capital letters in her name, and editors refuse to allow even any mention in the (incorrectly titled) Danah Boyd article that her legal name has no capital letters (anytime this information is put in it is quickly reverted). I think there needs to be a policy specifically allowing idiosyncratic capitalization of at the very least personal names and pseudonyms. There was a stalled discussion of this on the WP:MOSCL talk page. —pfahlstrom 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more focused poll on diacritics has been started, to address the very specific issue of whether or not diacritics should be used in the article titles of Polish monarchs. Interested editors are invited to participate, at: Talk:List of Polish monarchs#Poll: article names of Polish monarchs, diacritics accepted or not. --Elonka 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change this article to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (proper names). Any comments/objections? jguk 12:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense. This isn't linked to from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions page either. Nor does it have a "naming conventions" template. I don't know the group of pages well enough to determine whether it's redundant or seperate or what, though. --Quiddity 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is up for acceptance or amendment. Your voices would be welcome.

It makes suggestions on the treatment of alternate names in text which are more detailed than the section on Place names here (especially the case of multiple local names) but are not inconsistent with this page. A cross-link may be in order. Septentrionalis 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any consensus on what to do when the person goes by a lower case name? Does it matter if it is their legal name? I'm thinking specifically of an issue at Danah Boyd, but there are other examples. There is also a mention of this above, but no response. - cohesion 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence of a consensus, though the bell hooks article has survived non-capitalized for years, which may be evidence. —pfahlstrom 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though one has to consider that regular contributors to an article are usually somewhat invested into the subject at hand, hence they are more likely to give preference to typesetting eccentricities, rather than subjecting them style guidelines. It's hardly ideal, but regrettably happens quite a lot. There appear to be no past requested moves at Talk:Bell hooks (and its archives), so while the article is often cited in similar discussions, it probably never had one with broad input of the community (through Wikipedia:Requested moves or an RfC) of its own.- Cyrus XIII 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no past move requests, but this absence of move requests has been preceded by much discussion of the capitalization, as you can see. If it ain't broke, don't fix it—when an article about a notable subject does just fine for multiple years without having a prescriptive guideline applied, that's evidence that the guideline is not considered applicable. Now, I agree that it is a general rule in English that personal names are capitalized. But this guideline here does not even address the standard variations that allow for names such as L. Sprague de Camp—and if those variations are allowed, why should others not be? It's a question of markedness—names that have initial capitals are unmarked; they're what people expect. But sometimes the use of historically unmarked terms in place of marked terms can be controversial, such as with sexist language. If someone specifically marks their name by decapitalizing one or more letters that would traditionally be marked, re-unmarking the name could be seen as discriminatory.

Anyway, my point is that this guideline seems just to be saying to capitalize proper names, just as any student learns in elementary school. It does not seem to be saying to capitalize proper names even of those people who prefer that all or part of their names not be capitalized. —pfahlstrom 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support following what the subject of the article calls him/herself, per BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that it's not about how they refer to themselves, but about how they are best known in major reliable sources. --Elonka 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources has to do with factual information, not style decisions. Whether we capitalize someone's name as they choose is a style decision. We don't follow the New York Time's manual of style just because it's a reliable source. The two issues are not the same. - cohesion 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be interpreted to be a question of fact rather than style—if the capitalization is considered as essential as what letters are used to spell their name (and with the subjects in question, this is indeed the case), then that's a question of accuracy. In the case of danah boyd there are reliable sources for both capped and uncapped forms, and when there are reliable sources for both sides, should Wikipedia go with the one that outnumbers the other, or the one that is actually correct? —pfahlstrom 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should follow the conventions of English, in order to distinguish proper nouns in text and make it accurate and readable. Even if someone refers to himself or herself by lowercase names, those should be capitalized on Wikipedia. Unlike "danah boyd" and "bell hooks", which are lowercased by perhaps only hundreds of people, names like "Sprague de Camp" are not exceptions. They are whole classes of names that follow a rule used for centuries and accepted for all names by virtually all speakers of English. Such names come from a foreign language (in this case, French) in which "de" means "of" and, as in English titles, is not capitalized. We follow the convention of capitalization by capitalizing the translated names from languages that do not have capital letters, such as Mandarin. Unlike derogatory language, such as "fag", capitalizing a name is not meant to be offensive. Unlike sexist language, such as "house maid" or "air hostess", there is no underlying association with a particular group of people or stereotypes; on the contrary, the rule treats everyone equally. If a dozen people in the world prefer to be referred to by a lowercase name, this is just a whim in spite of society at large. There is no good reason for society to honor that whim. Distinguishing proper names makes text much less ambiguous and more effective. Conversely, any English speaker would be slightly confused at reading two words that appear to function as a proper name but are in lowercase. Names that function as common nouns, like "bell hooks", are even more confusing. I agree that the Manual of Style is not definitive about capitalizing proper names, but I think the above are compelling arguments for capitalizing names. -Pgan002 23:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revive this discussion and make a proposal to change the MoS, because the "Danah Boyd" article remains an extremely problematic case, and it seems unlikely that the continuing controversy over it will be resolved with anything other than a change to MoS to accommodate people who are known by lower-case names.

Reasoning for the general case:

While not common, there are notable individuals who are known by names which are presented entirely in lower-case. Currently, MoS contradicts itself by advocating following "common usage" in one place, and imposing capitalization in another. Allowing lower-case names for articles about/referencing these individuals would resolve this contradiction. It would also maintain a principle of "least surprise" for readers familiar with the subjects of those articles, and as a by-product probably reduce the number of ongoing debates concerning the presentation of names in those articles. Additionally, allowing properly-referenced use of lower-case names would remove a potential avenue through which NPOV and BLP could be violated (by removing an implied view of what is and is not a "proper" name for a person, and a means by which content disrespectful of a living person might otherwise be permitted on Wikipedia).

Proposed change to policy:

This paragraph:

Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages.

Should change to the following:

Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns these names are usually first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages. When a person is commonly known by a name which is not first-letter capitalized, and multiple reliable sources verify the non-capitalized usage, do not capitalize the name.

Possible objections and replies:

Objection: Some organizations (e.g., newspapers) have style guides which impose capitalization in the same way as the current MoS; these are reliable sources on Wikipedia, and their usage should be taken into account.

Reply: Their usage should be taken into account, but "reliable" should not be confused with "authoritative". Just as other sources are preferable to newspaper articles in other fields (e.g., if several peer-reviewed scientific journals contained information about a science-related topic which contradicted an article in the New York Times, the information in the peer-reviewed journals would be used by Wikipedia in preference to the newspaper article), great care should be taken in reviewing available sources.

Objection: Given the above, it's impossible to reliably determine which sources to follow.

Reply: It's hard in some cases, but not necessarily impossible. As in the example above of peer-reviewed journals conflicting with a newspaper article, it is often possible and, in fact, easy to render a judgment between sources (e.g., a secondary source is to be preferred to a tertiary source, and a source with authority in a specific field is to be preferred, within that field, to a source with only general authority). In cases where the correct usage is ambiguous or contentious, an RFC should be used to establish consensus for Wikipedia's usage.

So. Thoughts? Ubernostrum 10:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be appropriate for participants of the Boyd mediation to pursue any guideline changes that may apply to the scenario that is still being mediated on. - Cyrus XIII 13:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything inappropriate in my comments above; the endless nature of the debates (which seem to pop up pretty reliably at regular intervals), and now the mediation, over that article seem to point out pretty clearly that the MoS has problems with lower-case names, and changing the MoS is not in any way within the scope of that mediation, so why wouldn't it be appropriate to point out the problem with MoS and propose a remedy? Ubernostrum 14:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that pfahlstrom's example of bell hooks lends some precedent to this notion; in that case, the use of a lower-case name on Wikipedia flatly contradicts the MoS guideline, but appeals to reliable sources (no less than the Chicago Manual of Style, allegedly on hooks' insistence, recognized her name as lower-case) have so far carried the debate. Accommodating the occasional person who is verifiably known by a lower-case name (see also the lower-case title, but not lede -- a contradiction which could be resolved by this change -- on k.d. lang) in the MoS would seem to be a logical step from there. Ubernostrum 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording of Ubernostrum's proposed revision to this guideline is a good start and agree with the underlying reasoning as he has expressed it, in addition to my previous arguments. I also reiterate that the current guideline is silent even on common lowercased name particles; this (as well as CamelCase names involving particles such as in LaKisha) should be addressed in any revision. I write this while recognizing that my opinion may carry little weight since I am currently unwilling to back it up by active participation in the process, due to my reasons expressed in my latest comments on the danah boyd talk page. Best wishes. —pfahlstrom 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more explanation

After spending a while away from the Boyd article and thinking about this more in depth as a general problem, I think it reduces as follows.

The prescription that personal names "are always first-letter capitalized" creates an unresolvable tension between WP:MOSPN and other Wikipedia policies, leading to unnecessary arguments and edit wars:

• When a person is verifiably commonly known by a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and WP:COMMONNAME; MOSPN says to capitalize, while COMMONNAME says to use "the most common name".
• When reliable sources identify a person using a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and the paired policies WP:V and WP:RS; MOSPN says to capitalize, while V and RS say to follow verifiable, reliable sources.
• When a living person is known by a name which is, in whole or in part, not first-letter capitalized, a tension exists between WP:MOSPN and WP:BLP; MOSPN says to capitalize, while BLP says to "get the article right".

The result of this is that articles about such persons can and do easily devolve into perpetual edit wars (Danah Boyd would be the canonical example here); when there is tension or contradiction between policies, multiple conflicting arguments can be made, and the very real possibility is introduced that an article will never stabilize on one usage, instead being tugged back and forth according to which choice of policy backing is favored by a majority of editors at a given moment, or remain a hotbed of controversy as different editors argue positions which are, though contradictory, perfectly justifiable according to the particular policies to which they choose to give greater weight.

To prevent these problems, some form of resolution to this intra-policy tension is necessary. MOSPN seems the most appropriate candidate for change:

• Altering WP:V or WP:RS to, in effect, allow for non-verifiable information or the ignoring of reliable sources would fundamentally change the operation of Wikipedia and open up a very tangible slippery slope to less-verifiable or unsourced information, hence these policies should remain as they are.
• Altering WP:BLP to, in effect, allow "getting the article wrong" would, again, be a fundamental change, and would, again, open up a slippery slope, this time to articles disrespectful of living subjects; hence this policy should remain as it is.
• Altering WP:COMMONNAME would resolve the tension between that specific policy and MOSPN, but would not resolve the tension between MOSPN and other policies; hence this policy is not the most appropriate candidate for a change.

This leaves MOSPN as the best candidate to be altered: amending MOSPN to allow personal names to omit capitalization -- when such omission can be properly verified and sourced according to other Wikipedia policies -- would resolve all of the above tensions with the least impact on Wikipedia itself. The change to the policy's wording proposed above seems to me to be the minimal change necessary to effect this resolution, but I'm not in any way wedded to that particular wording.

Does anyone have strong arguments for/against this proposal? I'd like to get it to the stage of asking for actual votes one way or another, but getting arguments out in the open for discussion is a necessary first step. Ubernostrum 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that amending MOSPN seems to be the best alternative, for the reasons you give above. If there are numerous reliable sources that give someone's name in a non-standard style, and the person has declared for a particular style, BLP and COMMONNAME are pretty clear, leaving MOSPN as the one that needs to be changes. WP needs to reflect reality, not dictate it.--SarekOfVulcan 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an amendment, as WP:BLP/WP:COMMONNAME and the Manual of Style deal with different things, which are content and formatting respectively. Hence no scope for any sort of "reality" distortion, especially when stylistic quirks are still mentioned/described in the respective articles (i.e. in the lead). - Cyrus XIII 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus, by that argument you really ought to be over at MOSTM arguing for "Ipod", "Itunes", "Ebay", etc.; given your logic, there's no reason for MOSTM to have the specific exception for their capitalization, since "Ipod" and "iPod" are the same thing and a note in the lede about the "stylistic quirks" would do just as well ;)

Or maybe -- just maybe -- there's some precedent for the idea that an absolute "always first-letter capitalize" guideline can be problematic? ;) Ubernostrum 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ubernostrum's proposal above. I agree that there is a conflict between the referenced policies and I agree that adjusting MOSPN is the most practical, reasonable, and compassionate solution of which I am aware. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ubernostrum's proposal as well, for all the reasons stated above. --Charles (Kznf) (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason that the current guidelines need to be changed. Ubernostrum's proposal was mainly to deal with one article, that of Danah Boyd. Changing guidelines because of one user's interest in one article, is not a good idea. We should stick with Wikipedia's current policy, which is that Wikipedia follows the lead of outside sources. --Elonka 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree whole-heartedly! The problem is that although that is what you added to the styleguide, that has since been edited out (without any consensus) by Cyrus XIII, in this edit[6] and then tightened even further in this edit[7]. I definitely support a reversion (to your version) of the policy to include an emphasis on reliable sources. --Charles (Kznf) (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Without any consensus" is somewhat misleading. I proposed said change on the guideline talk page, yet without any replies for weeks. Maybe editors who would have been likely to comment felt that they had already discussed the issue ad nauseum at the mediation Elonka mentioned, I don't know. In order to get at least some additional input on the matter I nudged an editor with whom I share an agreement to keep each other posted on stylistic matters to offer his two cents, which he did. A full month after the initial proposal, I applied the change, which to me still only smoothed out a minor inconsistency among our many many style guides. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion about whether the page at Vossstrasse should be moved to Voßstraße. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Vossstrasse#Page name. --Elonka 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the existing guidelines cover capitalization of forms of the word "Bible", which generally is capitalized when referring to the Judeo-Christian scripute, or not? John Carter 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization of scriptures is already covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents, so it's safe to assume that any words derived from their titles are to be capitalized as well. Has there been any discussion on this elsewhere? - Cyrus XIII 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Specific policy needed on capitalisation. John Carter 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of a biographical article is of a non-English or non-British background, it is often the convention that their name in the article is followed by a foreign-language script which spells their name in order to reflect their ethnic background. Examples of this would include Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (first note), Ariel Sharon and so on.

There is an issue at Shilpa Shetty where various editors feel that her name should be translated according to the Hindi script which reflects the country in which she lives, as well as the language she is most known for speaking in her movies. This is opposition to the current usage of the Tulu transliteration of her name, which other editors feel should remain as Tulu is her mother-tongue. A proposed compromise to include both transliterations has been rejected because apparently it is the 'English' Wikipedia and only one foreign-language script should remain. This cannot be true in the case of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article. Also, the editors apparently cite Wikipedia "convention" that subject's names can be transliterated only in the language of their mother-tongue: is this true?

What are the current conventions in matters such as these? Is it appropriate to compromise and include both transliterations? Would it also be ok to include IPA and ITRANS transliterations, etc? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 18:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's so redunant loading the article with so many scripts. It is the English Wikipedia. Her mother tongue is Tulu, so that's exactly what we should mention.

You say, "...the Hindi script which reflects the country in which she lives, as well as the language she is most known for speaking in her movies."

• A) "Reflects the country in which she lives"? Who determines that? According to whom? She speaks nearly 10 different Indian languages which reflect the country in which she lives. So what? Should we mention all of them there?
• B) "The language she is most known for speaking in her movies."? - first of all, the foreign script has nothing to do with her profession, but her identity and particular native language. As for her films, she has acted in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and Kannada language films, so here comes the same question: Should we mention all of them there?

The answer is definitely no. Her mother-tongue is Tulu, and that's what counts and that's what matters, according to me. Comments?

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, this is about forming a consensus to setting a standard for Bio articles across all of Wikipedia. Please address your arguments accordingly, not frame them according to the scope of one article. Your first sentence betrays your lack of knowledge in how bio articles are written in Wikipedia; on the contrary there are many articles that present several transliterations of the subject's name. You have not addressed the point about several well-known bio articles including of various scripts (example: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), and your point about this being the English Wikipedia is redundant. Your argument about mother-tongues are also redundant, because perhaps it has no consensus? Where is the consensus that foreign scripts of subject names should only be in the subject's mother-tongue? What are the currentc conventions observed in Wikipedia?

• A) This is obviously silly. Nobody is advocating for a complete list of languages to reflect the country which she lives. Please stop producing strawman arguments. As far as I am aware, it is the convention to include foreign scripts based on the general nationality of the subject. In this particular case since Shetty is Indian and the national language of India is Hindi, the script should naturally be Hindi.
• B) Again a redundant argument. That was an ancillary point brought up for discussion.

So far your responses have not been impressive nor have they addressed the subject of my query, neither have you commented about any possible compromises. Again, this is not about what you want or what you think. This is a page meant to discuss the standards across all of Wikipedia. Please discuss accordingly and refrain from modifying arguments to suit your specifications for only one bio article. Your idea(s) will only apply if you have a WP:CON. Currently you do not have that. Regards, Ekantik ^talk 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do you have. Laughable, you are criticising me, as if you are here to decide on these points. So let me quote you, and tell you that: this is not about what you want or what you think. While I'm also not a big fan of your work on here, I respect you, so please show respect too.

"In this particular case since Shetty is Indian and the national language of India is Hindi, the script should naturally be Hindi." - again, laughable... There are tons of Indians who don't even speak Hindi. I come originally from India, there I graduated from school, but I don't speak Hindi (I do understand though).

Your points are not valid, and the fact that you are throwing different Wikilinks of different policies doesn't impress me either. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we also name them according to English naming? F.e. what to do here : Tavisuplebis Moedani, Tbilisi, shall we better use Freedom Square, Tbilisi ? Steelmate (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is already covered in the section on place names. 217.28.2.84 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alone, Washington County would have the "county" capitalized since it is part of the proper noun. But what about Washington, Lincoln and Smith Counties? Should "counties" be capitalized? --Holderca1 ^talk 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are names of military operations considered proper names? What happens if the name is different in the original language to the one used in English?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're in WP:MILHIST; those guys are usually the ones I would ask. They're very good with language. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The convention there is "An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event". However, the most common name is not always the correct name, usually because the common name was coined, often by media, before the correct name of the operation in its country of origin was known, i.e. it is literally improper--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like bell hooks and danah boyd, for example). -- Irn (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent changes at MOSCAP regarding the use of lowercase personal names, I think we should look into revising this line: "As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized". I would recommend simply addding an exception like "except when individuals does not want their personal names capitalized and the lower case variant has received regular and established use in reliable third party sources." Or something to that effect. -- Irn (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one is responding (and a notice was posted here about the discussion at MOSCAP [and in light of the above discussions]), I'm going to assume that no one objects. If no one has raised any objections in a week, I'll just go ahead and change the page to reflect the changes made at MOSCAP. -- Irn (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal names are transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages.

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin (Алексáндр Серге́евич Пу́шкин) was a …

Canute (sometimes Cnut; Danish Knud) is the …

To cite from the Wikipedia article on Proper nouns:

The meaning of a proper noun, outside of what it references, is frequently arbitrary or irrelevant (for example, someone might be named Tiger Smith despite being neither a smith nor tiger-like). Because of this, they are often not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated—for example, the German surname Knödel becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English, not Dumpling.

Two changes proposed:

1. The Knodel/Knoedel/Knödel example points to article space. It is not a good idea to have guidelines point to article space, because the article can change at any time. In addition, if a notable German politician, say, were called Knödel, then we should actually write Knödel in their BLP, and not Knodel or Knoedel. I propose we delete this paragraph, retaining at most the bit about not translating foreign names.

2. Do we have a guideline for when to give names of biography subjects in foreign scripts? I can't find one. If we don't have one, I suggest it would make sense to give the name in the foreign script (in the lead, in brackets and after the Romanised spelling), whenever the subject was born in the country that uses the foreign script. For example, in the BLP of Vijay Amritraj, his name appears first in Roman letters, and then in the script of his region of birth. Today, the man lives in America. In the BLP for his son Prakash Amritraj, who was born in California, we don't give the name in foreign script. This may be due to the article being less well developed, but it also makes some sort of sense. Prakash Amritraj is still a recognizably Indian name, but as he was born in the US, his name would have been recorded in Roman letters on his birth certificate. In such cases, editors should still have the option of giving the name in foreign script as well, but I'd suggest this should only be done if the subject has strong links to his family's country of origin and his name is frequently seen there, written in the foreign script. It obviously would not make sense, for example, to give the name of a third-generation Russian American who does not even speak Russian himself any more in Cyrillic script in his BLP.

Does the above make sense, and would there be any objections to updating the guideline text accordingly? Jayen466 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. But many people leave their country of birth as a result of persecution and don't want to be associated with it or are persecuted in their own country. Hebrew is the official language of Israel, would we therefore translate the names of Muslims living or born in Israel into Hebrew?Momento (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we would. Note though that Arabic has official status in Israel. Jayen466 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'd have to word it in such a way that in countries with multiple official languages we use the script of the ethnic group, or region, that the subject was born in. Jayen466 09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for cases where someone grew up as a member of an oppressed minority, I can see that using the script of the oppressors, for want of a better word, might be considered offensive, especially in a BLP. Should we include a sentence to that effect? Jayen466 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would we establish this oppression - by comments made by bio subjects? Hating or fearing an oppressive government is not the same as hating the script used in that country. Are there any instances of this that we can point to, or is this just a guess about a hypothetical situation?   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Background - the issue of non-latin script came up today in regard to Prem Rawat, who was born in India and has a large following there, but who now lives in the US and is a US citizen. He has been known by several Indian names or titles in his life. The discussion there is at Talk:Prem Rawat#प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत and Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar RfC   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your view on the matter, Will? Jayen466 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen is making two proposals. Regarding the first one, I think that the quotation is clear, but possibly unnecessary. As for the underlying principle, oftentimes a foreign name is simplified in common usage by removing accents. It's not our job to "fix" common usage, but just to reflect it. Regarding the second issue, I think Jayen makes a good case for a general principle. Basically, if someone is born in a country that uses a non-latin script, and has a name native to that language, then we should include the name in its original script. While I agree with Rumiton, below, that veribiability could be a problem in some cases, there are so many editors familiar with foreign languages that in practice I don't see a significant problem. A benefit would be to aid in transwiki linking, as it'll be clearer which individual is being discussed. Regarding Momento's issue about refugees from oppression, that doesn't seem like a common issue. This is just a guideline and if an individual found the language or script of their birth country to be repugnant then it could be removed from their article. We don't need to draft guidelines that cover every possible permutation.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Wikipedia works because of the number of editors who can read the articles and spot the errors and POVs as they creep in. Allowing foreign script in an English language article reduces the number of editors. I can see cases where misleading script could stay for months before being picked up. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have editors that know the languages concerned. Giving Cyrillic transliterations for notable Russians is pretty standard in WP, same with Chinese proper names etc. Jayen466 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the first case, note our article on Gerhard Schröder (thus spelt) and note google news, which shows that many quality media publications, including the Times, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the International Herald Tribune use the original spelling with the umlaut at least half the time, or even exclusively (at least in this small sample). We have to remember that we are an encyclopedia and therefore should commit to the most educated usage, which is to include accents on French names, umlauts on German etc. The variant spellings ("Gerhard Schroder", "Gerhard Schroeder" etc.) can be set up as redirects, so users will see the most correct spelling. I think that is current practice anyway; it would be hard to argue the principle that we should have a redirect from a correct spelling to a wrong spelling. Agreed? Jayen466 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of accents is slightly different than the issue of scripts. These should probably be two separate threads. Anyway, this is the English Wikipedia, so whichever spelling is most common in English should be used. Cologne is the name in English, but Köln is the "proper" spelling of the name. If it's a close case, such as the Schröder example abovce, then we should retain the accents. However there is also a problem with folks adding accents where they don't belong. Here are two examples that I've dealt with in the past. Richard Ramirez never spent a day of his life in Mexico, though he is of Mexican descent, and never spelled his name with an accent. Despite that, some editors were moving the article to "Ramírez". They believe that is the "correct" spelling in Spanish, even though it isn't used by the subject. Likewise with Roman Polanski. He hasn't lived in Poland since he was a young man, and in his films and printed matter he spells his name without an accent. Yet editors insist that it should be spelled "Polański" because that is how it is spelled in Poland. So this is a delicate matter. We need to both honor the most common usage and the usage preferred by the subject, while also keeping in mind the most correct version when one is known.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the naming of articles, Wikipedia:Naming convention is the main guideline. It says:

• Use English words
• ... The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence). Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form as in Franz Josef Strauss; ...

So if a name has become common in English without accents, then it seems consistent to use that version.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. There is also WP:UE, which is linked from Wikipedia:Naming convention. I never cease to be amazed at how it's always possible to come across another guideline page that one has never heard of. I note that WP:UE mentions that "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article". I'll get back to you when I've had time to read through these pages. Jayen466 21:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's always one more guideline. I see that WP:UE says:

• The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京.

That seems to address this exact issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the second case, I think you are right; this is a guideline, it is not cast in stone, and the rest should be left to editors' discretion and WP:BLP. Jayen466 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the verifiability of foreign scripts can be a significant problem in real life: [8] A tragic case. Jayen466 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, WP articles are easier to change than tatoos.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline on how to present these? Should it be A. R. Rahman, A.R. Rahman, AR Rahman, A R Rahman, or something else entirely.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names applies. It seems A. R. Rahman is the preferred spelling. Jayen466 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxembourg example doesn't really work any more, because the article on Luxembourg has changed since this was written. (Yet another reason why linking to article space from guidelines is not such a great idea ...) I've reinserted the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in bold in the Luxembourg lede the way it was half a year ago, but that still does not match our description of the article here. Will adust the wording here to match Luxembourg, but unless someone is prepared to keep an eye on this, we should consider our options. Jayen466 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We started discussing several issues above. Perhaps it will be easier to take these on one at a time. The following passage:

To cite from the Wikipedia article on Proper nouns:

The meaning of a proper noun, outside of what it references, is frequently arbitrary or irrelevant (for example, someone might be named Tiger Smith despite being neither a smith nor tiger-like). Because of this, they are often not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated—for example, the German surname Knödel becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English, not Dumpling.

has several problems:

1. It links to article space.
2. Knoedel does not (necessarily) become Knodel or Knoedel in English, as the example of Gerhard Schröder illustrates.
3. Whatever else it says is really common-sense.

Would we lose anything of value if we deleted this part of the guideline? Jayen466 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reason to have policies is to have a brickbat for the Wikipedians without common sense. Although substituting an example without diacritic would be simpler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is about an entity that has other places as members (see Council of Europe, for example), the listing of those places (that is, the members) should follow the official English version of the listing provided by the umbrella organization, whether politically correct or not. These would, of course, link to the article name used at Wikipedia.

Is this desirable? It comes close to requiring official names, and (as the example should make clear) one purpose of this is the campaign to say FYR of Macedonia as often as possible. This page should not assist ethnic point-scoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this bold edit. Your feedback welcome. Mike R (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see in some articles the article will lead with the real name followed by the stage name, and others will start with the stage name followed by the real name. Does the MOS say which should be used ? I see notes about the most common known but Ringo Starr article starts with his real name but obviously his stage name is the best known. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When someone is most commonly known without their middle name, would it not be proper to use and/or link the commonly known name and not the full name? The Wikipedia:Proper_names#Personal_names seems to apply here though it only refers to article titles, not in the text of articles.

However, if the person is conventionally known by only their first and last names and disambiguation is not required, any middle names should be omitted from the article title (emphasis mine).

The question arose when reviewing Order_of_Nova_Scotia#Inductees, especially Sidney Crosby and Anne Murray, though I have seen it in various other places including references to Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger, aka Arnold Schwarzenegger. Seems like unneeded confusion to me. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link text doesn't have to be the article title; that's what masking is for. But since the indicated section is citing some notable inductees, not quoting the whole roll, I would use the recognizable form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vote appears to have ended; in any case the link to vote above no longer links to any section titled #Vote. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 14:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno where to put this, but I wish to suggest the following policy regarding alphabetization of lists of people. I didn't want to re-invent the wheel but couldn't find anything on enwiki that provided this info. If it's already here please let me know. I also didn't want to re-invent the wheel when perfectly good wheels are already working so I've followed the recommendations of the Chicago Manual of Style - because if they don't know how to do it, no body does.

The suggested policy is at User:Svanslyck/Surnames but let's have the discussion here (or wherever this topic get moved to). Thanks for listening. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), it is suggested that the name common to a people and their language should be used whenever practical. The current wording is,

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, that term is preferred, especially when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related. For example, Germans and German language, with redirects at Deutsch and Deutsche; also Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. The template {{Infobox NC name}} may be used to list the various affixed forms, as at right for Tswana.

Since this affects more than just languages (though, in general, languages are named after peoples or places rather than vice versa), IMO a redirect to the language conventions should be included here. Perhaps s.t. like,

Peoples and their languages

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, that term is preferred, as in Swahili people and Swahili language rather than Waswahili and Kiswahili.

Any objections? — kwami (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple days now and no objections, so I'll add the line. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largely redundant, except for the link, but harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is the right place, but what is the practice for referring to people with stage names such as Muddy Waters or Brotha Lynch Hung or DJ Premier within the article itself? Where we would normally use a surname "Bush did X" to maintain professional writing, it is certainly not appropriate application to write "Premier did X" or "Hung did X", is it? Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing a new section added by Dicklyon, per WP:BRD. While he asked for opinions in the "capital letters" guideline, he not received yet any reply, and he is neglected to mention and the changes would allow him to win a content dispute in which he is involved.

==Compounds with proper names== Proper names are often compounded with generic terms to make phrases that may be interpreted as referring to a specific object or concept – for example, Labrador retriever (a specific dog breed), Murphy's law (a specific adage), Halley's comet (a specific celestial body), Venturi effect (a specific scientific effect), Gouraud shading (a specific algorithm), Morse code (a specific encoding), Cairo ring road (a specific road). Do not over-capitalize – it is Wikipedia style to treat the entire phrase as a proper name only if it is almost always so treated in high-quality sources. (Such compounds are often found with the generic term capitalized, as if the entire phrase is a proper name, in publications of specialist groups that tend to name and organize their topics. In writings of and for the general public, on the other hand, more often only the name part is capitalized, and the phrases are treated as descriptive.)

This section is hand-tailored to help Dickylon win a content dispute in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#comet_names.

The examples are at odds with the cited articles: our article Labrador Retriever has always been capitalized. Halley's Comet has always been capitalized, even when it was called Comet Halley. Dickylon is currently trying to move it to Halley's comet, so that it will his example. This looks too much like a half-baked text thrown together in order to win an ongoing content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wrote the section first, and asked for comments on the talk page WT:Manual of Style (capital letters) before choosing Halley's comet as the first test case to try to get some comments and discussion. I said all that there. I have no particular interest in winning at Halley's comet, and it's not a content dispute. It's a style matter. Let's discuss it civilly, as I've trying to do, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see why the examples are wrong.

"Murphy's law" is a bad example because most books capitalize it by a wide margin [9], which a simple google book search can confirm[10]. Looking at the 25th anniversary edition of the original Murphy's Law, you can see that it was coined and intended to be used as a proper noun.[11] You opened a few days ago a move request in Talk:Sturgeon's_Law#Requested_move, which probably gave you the idea to insert this example. However, all sources capitalize that law, giving a perfect counterexample of what you were proposing.

"Cairo ring road" doesn't show in ngrams. It has about 50/50 usage in books, and there are very few books[12]. And it was originally capitalized, but you moved it 14 minutes before inserting it as an example in the guideline, saying "commonly lower-case in sources". (I think that you are not conscious of how bad this looks to other people). The main problem is that it contradicts Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways), which says that all US highways names have to be capitalized (treats them like proper names, apparently). Anyways, this was a tricky one, turns out that the road's official name is "Ring Road". I made a request to move it to "Cairo's Ring Road" Talk:Cairo_ring_road#requested_move.

The examples that agree with with the majority of books are

"Morse code"[13]

"Gouraud shading"[14]

"Venturi effect" [15].

I suggest building a text from these valid examples. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the digression about the ring road? For one thing, why is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways)" being applied to it since it is in Egypt, which the last time I checked was no where near the U.S.? For another thing, the road is labeled quite clearly on the map. [16] True, the whole circular thing does not have that name, but whole chunks of it do. In case there is any question about the translation, if you plug "ring road" into google translate, you get الطريق الدائري, the same name as on the maps. But is it the same as on the ground? Here is a photo of the exit sign [17]. Not an imaginative name, but if the proper name of this road is not Ring Road, I will eat Tahrir Square. Neotarf (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have the articles "Martin Luther King, Jr." (as I expected), "Babe Zaharias" (a surprise to me, perhaps a mistake) and "Mary Decker" (no expectation). Suppose that they are adequately titled and that their lead sentences provide more complete information.

Is it sometimes right to use "King, Jr." alone in prose or in a list? Or is "Jr." used only when "Martin Luther" is used?

In prose and in lists, should (Didriksen) Zaharias be piped [[Babe Zaharias |Babe Didriksen]] regarding achievements under that use name, such as athletic competition at the 1932 Summer Olympic Games?

Should Decker (Slaney) be piped [[Mary Decker |Mary Decker Slaney]] where listed as a winner of some event late in her career? Should her biography read "In June 1997, the IAAF banned Decker ...
Throughout her later career, Slaney had suffered ...".

If the USATF Hall of Fame officially lists her as Mary Slaney (Decker) —better, if we knew that she was inducted under that name eight years ago— should explicit discussion of that membership say, for example "The first women in the Hall of Fame were ..., ..., and [[Mary Decker |Mary Slaney (Decker)]]"? What if the Hall of Fame inducts (I don't know) or lists (it's true) under a more formal name such as "Mildred (Babe) Didriksen Zaharias"? If we list women in the Hall of Fame, should it be under that name?

P.S. Some reference material, moving from print to digital media, has imposed unique names for people who were once listed under multiple names. It may be nothing but a quick & dirty way to manage all with one database management program, nothing but in the sense that they will gradually restore multiple names.

--P64 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to a relevant discussion on another talk page.

I've proposed a consistent WP:CITE standard for how to specify the publisher location in citations, at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Standards for handling publisher location. It takes better account of the WP:systemic bias problem than the practices recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style, and other style guides, which seem to always assume that the reader is a well-educated Westerner very familiar with American and European geography. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colleagues, please take note of this new section at WT:MOSCAPS:

"Proper nouns", "proper names", and other concerns: amending the lead

Your contributions to discussion would be appreciated.

Noetica^Tea? 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[18]

What should be done with place names that are having more than one common spellings, such as Macau/Macao? Does Wikipedia have any policy to standardize it with either spelling? Or would the same rule for color/colour apply? (In the case of Macau, the FCO,[19][20][21] the Macau Government[22][23] and the Hong Kong Government[24][25] spell it as Macao in English.) 116.48.165.183 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

responded here Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Place_names_with_multiple_spellings. Please don't start multiple forked discussions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Different guidelines may have different policies. It's neccesary to find this out at different talk pages as long as the guidelines are relevant. 110.4.16.158 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIACRITICS says "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." If we followed that language literally, there would be a whole lot fewer diacritics in titles than there are now. In contrast, this page says, "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters." The WP:Naming conventions (use English) page is obviously the better established guideline, so this one should be revised to conform. Kauffner (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is in line with policy and practice; we use established anglicized spellings like Aragon, but not mere common (mis)spellings of non-anglicized names like Paul Erdős. The rewrite of WP:DIACRITICS is highly disputed, having been opposed by most users that have commented on it. Prolog (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you can propose a change over at WP:Naming conventions (use English). That convention is specifically about article titles. The fact that WP:DIACRITICS sends you there rather than here is another cue as to which guideline should take priority. A change was agreed to, and it should done consistently through the guidelines. You must know that we had a big vote on this subject. The guideline here is more pro-diacritic than the proposal that was rejected. The Paul Erdős example shows nothing. We have 4 million titles on Wiki. You can find an example of whatever you want. Kauffner (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "change was agreed to"? The rewrite was done without consensus by a now topic-banned user who was at the time heavily involved in a diacritic-related RM. The two subsequent RFCs showed that this view is supported only by a (significant) minority of editors. The problem is there, not here, and the spelling of Erdős's name exemplifies the rule, not the exception. Prolog (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think of WP:DIACRITICS, WP:UE says basically the same thing: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". That's policy. This page is only a guideline. Kauffner (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UE is correct, but your interpretation of it is not; the idea that all common spellings of foreign names are anglicizations is contrary to the practices of authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias, and is not supported by a single style guide. Prolog (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other guidelines that confirm WP:UE. For example WP:LEAD has a section about Non-English titles saying: "Although Wikipedia's naming convention guidelines recommend the use of English, there are instances where the subject of an article is best known in English-speaking sources by its non-English name. In this case, the non-English title may be appropriate for the article." So, the non-English title may be appropriate when it is best known by its non-English name in English-speaking sources. That wording of this paragraph strongly suggests this is meant to be the exception, only used when the non-English name or spelling has taken over in English-language usage.

The prevalence in English-language sources is to be our first consideration.

But, I notice that some editors are turning this around and want to use the native spelling and anglicization rules as the prime criterion, trying to brush away any anglicization that is not according to certain rules as "errors". At the same time trying to make prevalence in English-language sources a secondary consideration, only agreeing to a common name without diacritics if it is very prevalent and about a person or place that almost everybody knows.

Authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias are good as far as they go, but they are built on a different model than WP. WP strongly relies on sources (all reliable sources , including reliable media sources), so the prevalence of certain names (or spelling of them) in those sources is what decides (not the 'rules' that other encyclopedias apply). MakeSense64 (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us back to the verifiability but NOT truth debate. Just because something can be cited to a source it does not be true especially if a source is known for certain limitations. For example a Mexican driverslicence only allows for one middle name. Can we use that as prove that the person only has one middle name? A technical disability of a souce does not make the resulting name a English name more is involved than that. Agathoclea (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. The famous "ignore all sources" rule. Do you really not know that this a style issue as well? It has become much easier to use diacritics in the last few years, but published sources have not gone Unicode crazy the way Wikipedia has. Kauffner (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of a source depends on the context (WP:SOURCES). We can and should be picky. Reputable reference works are pretty much "Unicode crazy", so our current house style suits our project. Prolog (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of diacritics in names that appear more frequently in reference works and scholarly sources makes more sense than using them in names that only rarely appear in such sources. That is the case with most names from sports for example. Sports articles largely depend on news media coverage, which typically does not use the diacritics in the names. The prevalence in English-language sources is then heavily in favor of the non-diacritics spelling. Editors who don't like that are trying to put it away as spelling errors, or mistakes from limitations like in the Mexican drivers license example. But that doesn't really matter, if it is the prevalent name in English-language usage then that's how it is. WP is molded according to the prevalence in the sources we have, not according to the approach that is used in some other reference works. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point again is that WP doesn't have "WP:RS sources" for stubs on Czech or Croatian junior tennis players who have maybe played one international tennis match in Austria. A skimpy website index card like this or this is not a reliable source for a lede like: Filip Horanský (born January 7, 1993) and known professionally as Filip Horansky, is a tennis player from Slovakia. Filip, with partner Jiří Veselý, won the 2011... " when the Slovak language press-sources in the article shows the player playing professionally under his correctly spelled name. Filip Horanský at www.talenty-info.sk "Filip Horanský je najlepším juniorským tenistom u nás." A scholarly English Book The socio economic impact of sports in Slovakia would be a source, but even then with BLPs in Latin alphabet WP spells fully in lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WP doesn't have 'WP:RS sources' for stubs on Czech or Croatian" in which case this is covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources. Whether a "A skimpy website index card" constitutes established usage for the naming of an article is something that can be debated on the talk page of the article. What is not needed is a content guideline giving contrary advise to that of the WP:AT policy and its guidelines, which covers the article title. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the major problem here is that the guidance given here is mixing up guidance given in the MOS which is about content with the guidance given in the Article Title policy and its guidelines (called naming conventions) such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). What to do is already described in MOS:FOREIGN:

The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines.
...
Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. See relevant policy at Article titles; see also Naming conventions (use English). For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete. If a foreign term does not appear in the article's references, adopt the spelling most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources (for example other English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias).

The wording in WP:AT mentioned in MOS:FOREIGN is under WP:UE and it says:

if there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on).

A more detailed explanation can be found in the WP:AT guideline (naming convention as such guidelines are termed) Naming conventions (use English). So why repeat it here in slightly different wording (which causes confusion)? I suggest that all of the text is replaced with:

The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged, for details of how decide on the appropriate usage see the section Foreign terms in the MOS.

As far as I can tell this should not be a controversial change because it is clear that the current wording should not be controversial but a summation of the main MOS page. That it is being misunderstood suggests that the current wording is not correct. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the use of correct spelling for living peoples' names is encouraged. We cannot have a guideline that says "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged" without making this clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we assess the "correct spelling" for a person's name? We do it by consulting reliable verifiable English language sources as recommended in MOS:FOREIGN. If verifiable English language sources use diacritics for a name so should Wikipedia. Basically MOS:FOREIGN says use the name as spelt in the reliable sources used to verify the content of the article. If it is the name is in the article title then that is worked out using the rules in the WP:AT policy. What additional information should this guideline add that is not already in MOS:FOREIGN? -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We generally assess the correct spelling (no need for " ") for a foreign name by looking at original language sources.

Where does MOS:FOREIGN guide people to use reliable sources for names? Where does it specifically say not to rely on tabloid/sports sources for things they were never designed to be reliable on? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just put my foot in it for no good reason at MOS:FOREIGN. There is no guidance there. What additional information that is needed is (put very simplistically) guidance to sports fans to either spell Living People's names correctly in sports BLPs, or not get upset when a French/German/Finnish/Croatian etc. editor comes along and adds a reliable source for spelling. Somehow somewhere in all the WP guidelines we can either encourage correct spelling of BLP names or we by default encourage misspelling - which of these is the objective? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need for quotes around "correct spelling", because you are trying to say that there is a "correct spelling" independent of reliable sources. This is an invitation to WP:OR.

Correct spelling is correct spelling - Frédéric Vitoux (writer) is correct spelling vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) which is incorrect spelling. If there's any " " marks going around anything as original research it'd be the attitude of some WP editors that "Frederic Vitoux (tennis) is "correct spelling in tabloid sources", it doesn't get more OR than that. The whole point of having a diacritic section here is to avoid this in an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it best if we salami slice the wording that is here and see how much we can agree on. First of all why retain

Similarly the name of the article on the Nordic god Ægir is so spelt, with redirects from the Anglicised form Aegir and the Swedish spelling Ägir. However, the article on the Spanish region of Aragón is titled Aragon, without the accent, as this is the established English name.

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit I am removing those examples. -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not silent, simply not in your time zone. Please take it as read that you do not have consensus to remove anything from MOS which will help avoid Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) type situations. And I don't think qui tacet is good procedure when discussion is going on. Rather than remove, replace with better examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not take it as read. If you object to something either being added or taken away from this guidance if it is unclear, unhelpful or contradicts other guidance then you have to explain why. In this case you have not explained how the wording I am proposing to delete helps clarify the situation. If you look at the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) it will explain to you why Ægir is where it is, but NC(NM) is out of date as it has not been updated since the introduction of Reliable sources to WP:AT in June 2008. These two sentences I propose to delete are to do with naming conventions not with the MOS. This is part of the MOS not a naming convention. Mix the two is confusing. So what is your explanation for keeping these two sentences? -- PBS (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As above the reason I object to you deleting the content is that I do not think you should unilaterally remove anything from MOSPN which will help avoid Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) type situations. At the moment that gives an example of when to use a diacritic (or rather a diphthong outside normal modern English) with Ægir. Rather than remove, I would prefer to replace with better examples. We want to give naming examples of diacritics, then perhaps more familiar in English is the one that usually gets cited Beyoncé Knowles (per birth certificate, 1981). I personally, if it was up to me, would also include Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) as an example of what not to do, and not to go on OR chases looking for "Frédéric + [non-notable surname]" in diacritic-disabled sources to arrive at "Frederic." That would actually be a useful guideline, because at least 50% of mistakes reoccuring on WP seem to happen on the basis of the belief that given name and surname must be verified together in combination for non-English given names and surnames. Or indeed tell people that it's okay for just use a reliable French source in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OK to use birth certificates as a source unless it has been published in a reliable secondary source (seeWP:PSTS "primary sources that have been reliably published" and for living people under WP:BLPPRIMARY). It is not OK to use split sources for first name usage and second name usage, that would be a syn ("Peccavi" as Sir Charles James Napier would have put it). It is not OK to use foreign sources if a name exists in English sources (MOS:FOREIGN WP:AT), that would end up with names like Wien and Napoléon I^er. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

A few days ago WP:MOSPN#Diacritics used to have instruction/guideline to spell people's names accurately even when sources (like tabloids) don't. I see it was Kauffner who removed it and Prolog restored it and it was removed again. Who agreed that it should stay removed? This was performing a useful function. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an answer to this question? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the status quo consensus version prior to Kauffner/PBS removal. This needs discussion and needs to have something better in place before a major deletion of this kind. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded with the initial comment to this thread (see below) at 17:45 on 22nd. You chose to ignore that and post put a second question here at 2:18 on 23rd. You have not restored the status quo consensus version because this gives different advise to that on the main page of the MOS. I have proposed salami slicing the text in the previous section and to date you have ignored that comment. I am now going to act on it Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"spell people's names accurately even when sources (like tabloids) don't" sounds like WP:OR to me. If you mean that tabloids are not reliable sources, then that is a matter for WP:SOURCES. What MOS:FOREIGN says is "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete." References in the article should be reliable ones or the information based on them should be removed (under WP:PROVIT). -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBS.

It could be if someone is determined, yes, but if you think it's a license for OR then improve the wording to say "spell people's names accurately [according to reliable sources for others with the same surname] even when sources (like tabloids) don't". That should be obvious, but if it isn't then insert it. In any case it isn't a proposal, it's an expression of intent - I am one of those who would like Living Person's names spelled accurately even if they are French, it isn't wicked is it? :)

As regards WP:SOURCES does WP:SOURCES currently give good guidance on spelling of foreign surnames? Where? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous other guidelines recommend that we follow the spelling that is "general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language": MOS:FOREIGN, WP:EN, WP:UE, and WP:DIACRITICS. Yes, media sources count as RS for this purpose, according to EN. This is a secondary guideline. It is supposed to summarize what the major guidelines say, not undermine them. UE should certainly trump it, since that is a policy. This was just a sleepy little guideline until recently. Kotniski made this change back in 2009, and it was years before anyone else noticed. Kauffner (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner. I would still like to know the answer to that question earlier: Are you in favour of allowing François Mitterrand to stand with diacritics? No long explanation needed, unless you prefer to give one, just a yes/no would be fine, more would also be fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner only some news media sources count as reliable sources. For example The Sun does not, but The Times does. In ictu oculi to answer your question about " allowing François Mitterrand to stand with diacritics" There are two separate questions there are you talking about within an article or an article title? For the former you have to look at MOS:FOREIGN for the latter WP:AT, both says follow the former says follow the usage of sources used in the article and the latter say follow usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PBS

In the case of François Mitterrand I'm asking Kauffner whether he is in favour of François Mitterrand standing as title, since I know he is in favour of names with diacritics appearing first in lede.

As regards MOS:FOREIGN yes it says follow the usage of sources used in the article and WP:AT says follow usage in reliable English language sources in the title. And both of these are potentially insufficient guidance for BLPs where a significant number of the 899,000 BLPs on en.wp do not have proper footnotes (where a sports editor is unable/unwilling to access a Slovak newspaper article to verify a BLPs name), or do not have reliable English sources that combine (i) reliability about someone's sport appearances, (ii) reliability about someone's name. Do you disagree with this observation? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"where a sports editor is unable/unwilling to access a Slovak newspaper article to verify a BLPs name" is a huge assumption.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohms Law, normally WP:AGF would require only "unable", however unfortunately one of the disturbing things about what I've witnessed following the history of the tennis names / hockey names saga is accurate redirects created from for example Slovak names, which indicates that "unable" is not the only factor at work here. Which is extremely regrettable, and shouldn't impact WP:AGF going forward, but is part of the landscape of the last six months. I'm not impressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, sorry, do you disagree with the above observation, specifically that a significant number of the 899,000 BLPs on en.wp do not have proper footnotes (specifically for the person's name in their own language) and do not have reliable English sources (again specifically for the person's name in their own language)? In ictu oculi (talk)

You are still mixing up the advise at WP:AT and WP:MOS. Article titles are derived in a different way from the usage within any article apart from those that are about the subject of the article title. For example if there is an article on a treaty and the sources about the treaty call a plenipotentiary by one name then that is the name we tend to use even though the biography on the person may be under a different name. When I look at the article Tony Benn I do not see that there is a footnote specifying what his name is. Instead the article is named under the name used in reliable English language sources. To understand why he is known as Tony Benn gets one mixed up in politics and to use of his "official name" would be a political statement, so using the name that is commonly used in reliable English language sources sidesteps the POV issues. On the other hand if one is talking about his election to Parliament in the early days then it is quite acceptable to use his name as it was recorded at the time, and will be present in sources of that date (hence the use of redirects). You are suggesting that we have a rule that overrides usage in reliable sources. Please read this comment which I recently added to article titles, it may help you understand why this is a retrograde step. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a "proper footnotes (specifically for the person's name in their own language)" if the issue is the Article title then we title our articles using the subject's common name in reliable English language sources. If there is disagreement on what that is then there will be a "Requested move" section in the talk pages where the evidence is examined, there is no need for a "proper footnote" about this on the article page. If it is about usage in an article then usage in the reliable sources in the article cover the form of name to be used. These are usually English language sources in line with WP:V. I do not see where "proper footnotes" because if there are no reliable sources in the article then this comes under Notability and an AfD. If the only information available about a BLP is in a foreign language then the sources in the artile will reflect this and those presumably will give a spelling in the foreign language (whatever that is). Introducing a new rule that tries to bypass verification in reliable sources is in my mind contrary to policy (specifically WP:V and WP:AT). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not title our European BLP articles using the European living person's common name in otherwise reliable English language sources when there the English sources may be reliable on the topic area but are not reliable on the spelling of his or her name. To say otherwise would require either that we only use Chicago MOS or at the minimum NYTimes/Economist MOS sources, which barely exist in English popular print media or that we deliberately introduce incorrect information to WP.

I am perfectly aware of the difference between article titles WP:AT and article content WP:MOS, as above: the problem of mispelling of BLP names occurs in both title and content, the problem needs to be addressed in both WP:AT and WP:MOS. Maybe I have not made clear what the root problem is that is being addressed here? My question: what happens when a BLP is borderline notable and appears only in English language sources which may be reliable for other things but are not reliable for the spelling of the BLPs name? This is the problem. Please kindly show me where, other than the diacritics section here which you appear to wish to remove, assists with the problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, PBS, sorry, if you disagreed with the above observation, specifically that a significant number of the 899,000 BLPs on en.wp do not have proper footnotes (specifically for the person's name in their own language) and do not have reliable English sources (again specifically for the person's name in their own language) and you said that you do not see where "proper footnotes" because if there are no reliable sources in the article then this comes under Notability and an AfD. Let me clarify. If you look at a European living person sports stub you will invariably find borderline notability. Correct. However those 899,000 BLPs have made it and are here. Now, sports stubs, have notability in sports sources, not in the Times literary supplement. If we follow sports sources as an authority on spelling we get WP:CONSISTENCY problems like Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) (currently at Frederic Vitoux (tennis). What is your solution to address this? Or, where in the AT or MOS (both) is this currently addressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the section WP:CONSISTENCY? It has nothing to do with what your example of two Vitoux (CONSISTENCY link to "Consistency within articles" which is a subsection of "National varieties of English"). Wikipedia is source driven. If that throws up inconsistency across articles then we allow those incontinences because we follow WP:Verifiability not truth. You are still persisting with language like "the problem of mispelling of BLP", you are presenting a POV which is often not supported by the sources. Our Policies and guidance says follow the usage is sources (See for example Using sources). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it is not an innovator but a follower. -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philip, it generally isn't a good idea to address people with "have you read ____ ?" if you want to be listened to, but in this case I thank you for noting the shortcut doesn't lead to the place in MOS I thought. Yes I have read MOS, and I thought that WP:CONSISTENCY linked to "consistent with the titles of related articles" at the top, so thanks for pointing that out. However consistency within articles is still relevant if you have articles on given names and surnames and families. Your tone "persisting" isn't particularly helpful either, I've stated the problem and you haven't addressed it other than by noting that MOS contains two consistency instructions. Given that WP:MOS says "consistent with the titles of related articles" what is your solution to Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) (currently at Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? Reliable sources on the French given name Frédéric show that it is Frédéric. Frédéric is a name used by NYTimes/Economist MOS, and used for all Frédéric's on WP. Are you arguing that because a tennis player called Frédéric fails to get into NYTimes/Economist that his name Frédéric isn't Frédéric but Frederic? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "see detail at FOREIGN", (what detail?)

Also, a reminder that your change to MOSPN doesn't have consensus and you should remove it. Not least because there is no "detail at FOREIGN", it isn't there. You could say "general principles at FOREIGN", but all in all this looks likely to redirect people from following relevant WP:IRS and being "consistent with the titles of related articles" if a foreign name is involved In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What change to MOSPN? -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition here. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not remove it as several other editors including yourself have edited the text. -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Then I'll return that line to status quo myself. Okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not "Okay". The change has been accepted with edits by other editors and no one but yourself has objected to the change. Further you have not explained what it is that you object to given that it include nothing that is not said in the main MOS guideline, and puts come clarity on what is a confusing paragraph that mixes article titles (of no relevance to this content guideline) and content. Indeed I do not see what it is that you think is being preserved by keeping the text I deleted. What is it that you think that says is an addition to the current main MOS guidance? -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, how does MOSFOREIGN fix Frédéric Vitoux (writer) and Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? How does MOSFOREIGN address the deletion of spelling from e.g. Czech BLP names by anti-European names editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "anti-European names" mean? -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means among others editors who delete the diacritics on Czech citizens in the lede of articles which are sourced with Czech language sources, and also editors who approve of it. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FOREIGN makes it clear that spelling should be based on the sources within the article unless the spelling in also used in the article title in which case it defers to WP:AT. So looking at Frederic Vitoux (tennis) there are three things to do. The first is to AfD the article if the sources are not reliable ones. The second is that MOS:FOREIGN does not apply to the spelling because the name in question is also the article title so WP:AT applies specifically WP:UE and its guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Internally what should be done is to follow the guidance in MOS:FOREIGN and use the spelling used in the article title. Now I have no idea if the reliable English language sources on this man meets the threshold of enough "reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage"(or for that matter if French sources are enough for notability), but lets assume that there are enough. If so then for example, the lead could be better structured as

Frederic Vitoux (French:Frédéric Vitoux) was born 30 October 1970 ...

The advantage of such a layout is that not only does it meet policy requirements, but it also informs the reader of the usual spelling in English and this format also covers cases where a person comes from a nation state such as Spain where their name may be spelt several ways.-- PBS (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that meets "policy requirements", why is it different from WP:OPENPARAGRAPH?

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996) was the fourth President of France ...

Which would require:

Frédéric Vitoux (born 19 August 1944 in Vitry-aux-Loges, Loiret) is a French writer and journalist. He is known as a novelist, biographer and literary columnist..

Frédéric Vitoux (born Versailles, 30 October 1970) is a member of the Union nationale des joueurs professionnels de tennis (UNJPT), and part of the "after-tennis" committee of the DTN (Direction technique nationale) of the Fédération Française De Tennis (FFT)..

And you haven't dealt with the question. What is your fix for WPMOS "and consistent with the titles of related articles" requirement between Frédéric Vitoux (writer) and Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? Why is the writer at diacritics and the tennis player not when both are called Frédéric Vitoux? What is the justification for going against WPMOS "and consistent with the titles of related articles" on this? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And btw. In answering the question you may wish to also Google search [site:en.wikipedia.org Frédéric]. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what question? -- PBS (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is not the place to look for this, you have to look at WP:AT, consistency is a legacy left over from before article titles were based on reliable sources (it used to be based on all sources both reliable and unreliable). While consistency is of some use for certain areas such as WP:NCROY it was never intended to cover situations like this. If you think otherwise ask at Wikipedia talk:Article titles because what you are suggesting doing is ignoring sources in favour of rules made up by editors in the interests of consistency has been rejected in lots of areas including WP:NCROY, see for example a current conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#duc to Duke. It is also a double edged sword. Take your favourite Frédéric Vitoux example. If consistency is desirable then why not ignore the sources in Frédéric Vitoux and move the article to Frederic Vitoux in the interests of consistency? This is why this idea has been rejected in favour of source based naming, because it encourages people to ignore usage in reliable sources. It can also becomes a method to reinforce older bad decisions and it is contrary to the idea that consensus can change. -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip

You say "If consistency is desirable then why not ignore the sources in Frédéric Vitoux and move the article to Frederic Vitoux in the interests of consistency?" Two reasons.

(1) the English and French sources in Frédéric Vitoux are both reliable, and the English-only sources in Frederic Vitoux (ignoring the French ones) are sports sources. And

(2) because if we Google search [site:en.wikipedia.org Frédéric] we'll find what looks to me like 400-500x French Frédéric articles. Should all 400-500 be moved simply because one of them plays tennis and is not mentioned in Google Scholar sources? Isn't it OR to assume that because he's not mentioned in Google Scholar that this Frédéric is different from all other French Frédérics and needs to be considered as "Frederic"?

(3) Le Parisien and various French newspapers mention the tennis Frédéric as Frédéric, and the article itself is sourced with Fédération française de tennis FFT - Reconversion joueurs de tennis - Le bilan de compétence "Frédéric Vitoux : Union nationale des joueurs professionnels de tennis (UNJPT)"

Yes that's right, when English sources are lousy, then use French sources:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) "If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, ..."

Do you still want to move Frédéric Vitoux (writer) to agree with Frederic Vitoux (tennis)? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I wanted to move either of them. It is you who are interested in a form of consistency which is a complete misunderstanding of how guidance given in the WP:AT policy (as demonstrated by the links above to recent conversations on this issue -- I can provide many more if you want to read them). The full quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources is

It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.).

Picking up on Kaufner's recent question, I think we should take a look at this:

• In MOS:FOREIGN: "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete."
• Here in MOS:PN about diacritics: "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is an established English spelling."

This is quite a difference. The first sentence says that we adopt the spelling we find in the English-language sources for the article. The second sentence makes using English spelling into the exception, and retaining diacritics the normal rule. This can only create confusion. If an editor finds English spelling of a name in the sources for an article then he can use that spelling based on MOS. Another editor can come along and argue that it is not "established English spelling" and we "normally retain special characters" and revert it based on MOSPN. And the tango can start. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline should only add guidance that is specifically necessary for "Proper names" that does not contradict the guidance given at MOS:FOREIGN. Therefore I propose that we delete all the text in the paragraph from and including "Non-English proper names ...". -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly the examples given in that paragraph refer to the use of names in article titles, so at best they belong in WP:UE not here in MOS, which pertains to the use of names in the body of articles. These examples create the impression that the spelling of foreign names in other articles should be taken from the title of the BLP for that person. That is not the case afaik. If some other article about mathematics mentions Paul Erdos and the English-language reference used for that article spells him without diacritics, then we retain this anglicized spelling even if his BLP article is kept at Paul Erdős. If Aragón is mentioned in an article and spelled with the diacritic in the English-language source(s) for the article, then we retain that spelling even if the article about Aragon is kept at the anglicized title. This is about staying true to our sources and being neutral towards diacritics (we neither remove nor add them). Correct me if I am wrong. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. -- PBS (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is (and should continue to be) in line with policy and established practice. Who actually makes spelling decisions based on commonness in an article's references section? All users seem to agree on using the best sources available, even if there is often disagreement which sources those are. Furthermore, WP:SOURCES and WP:RS call for using sources that are best suited for the context, so the silly instruction creep on MOS:FOREIGN may well go against a core policy. It should be removed per WP:BURO. Prolog (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this guideline contradicts the central MOS page then this guideline should be brought into line with the central MOS page. If you think that the central MOS page is not following policy then raise that issue there not here. The key paragraph in MOS:FOREIGN starts "Spell a name consistently..." and I don't see how you draw you conclusion that its wording is "against a core policy". -- PBS (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very few English-language sources (like dictionaries and encyclopedias) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to the proper orthographic presentation of foreign names in English. Yet, MOS:FOREIGN claims that all English-language sources are reliable regarding this matter. Even on a MOS subpage, consistency with core content policies is more important than consistency with the MOS. Prolog (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a questionable sentence: "Most recent personal names have but one correct spelling, although presentation (use of initials, middle names, nicknames, etc.) can vary and still be correct."
I can agree that recent "legal names" have only one correct spelling, but for "personal names" there can be many alternative spellings and transliterations. For example Serena Williams is spelled lv:Serena Viljamsa in Latvian. "Serena Viljamsa" is not a correct spelling of her "legal name", but it is a correct spelling of her "personal name" in Latvian. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you read about the history of Latvians and how their names were forcibly translated it is understandable that they now go the total opposite. Funny enaugh it make total sense that SW is a female "Viljams". Agathoclea (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think any objective editor would recognise that there's a discongruity if it takes 7 days of push and pull over a RM for a French tennis player called Frédéric to be allowed to join the other 4,900 French Frédérics on en.wp (see results for Google [site:http //en.wikipedia.org Frédéric "a French"]), and yet a single editor here can abritrarily delete or rewrite the MOSPN guideline at whim, which has been in place since 2009 without anything approaching discussion, let alone consensus.

• (cur | prev) 11:09, 3 May 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,062 bytes) (+185)‎ . . (Restore to version by Ohms law (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 26 April 2012) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:57, 3 May 2012‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,877 bytes) (+660)‎ . . (rv - no consensus for this rewrite, keeping the hatnote) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 07:39, 3 May 2012‎ MakeSense64 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,217 bytes) (-845)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: removing conflicting phrase per Talk) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:18, 27 April 2012‎ Ohms law (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,062 bytes) (-29)‎ . . (Not a bad idea, but the sentence didn't really make sense with that change. Is it the "well-" part that is most important? Let's talk on the talk page.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:59, 27 April 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,091 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: restoring removed [well]-established English spelling [that replaces them with English standard letters].) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:03, 26 April 2012‎ Ohms law (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,062 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Single paragraph; replaced "foreign" with "Non-English" (I think that "foreign" tends to reinforce an us vs. them attitude wrt diacritics)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:05, 23 April 2012‎ Boson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,051 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Sp (a->an)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:17, 23 April 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,050 bytes) (-54)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: section should not argue with itself) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:38, 23 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,104 bytes) (+248)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Put back the section about the MOS) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:33, 23 April 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,856 bytes) (+649)‎ . . (restoring status quo text prior to removal by Kauffner and PBS. This has been in the MOSPN for too long to summarily remove without consensus) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:21, 22 April 2012‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,207 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:21, 22 April 2012‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,206 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: run-on) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:16, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,206 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: change words to names) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:14, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,206 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: MOS:FOREIGN (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:12, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,185 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: Replace current wording with guidance to look at the relevant section in the MOS) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:01, 19 April 2012‎ 115.240.89.202 (talk)‎ . . (6,826 bytes) (-243)‎ . . (→‎Place names) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:42, 20 March 2012‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,069 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (partial rv - anglicized spellings are certainly "well-established") (undo)
• (cur | prev) 12:07, 20 March 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,065 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: well established --> established; Allows for greater conformity to policy at WP:UE. See talk.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 17:17, 19 March 2012‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,099 bytes) (+63)‎ . . (rv - incorrect, as the Paul Erdős example shows, and no consensus for this change) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:22, 19 March 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,036 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics: "Wikipedia follows the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." see Talk) (undo)

Dear Kauffner, MakeSense64
May I kindly request that you please restore the content on diacritics to 18 March 2012, and if anyone wants to change what has stood since 2009, have the decency to do an RfC. If you like, gentlemen, you may reuse the winsome Miss Knowles invitations I sent out 2 weeks ago to the 100 editors who had commented in diacritics RfCs. I (and the others in that RfC) could have taken the tack of simply coming here to MOSPN and deleting/editing MOS we didn't like. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time on this page alone that you have put in a new section heading that makes it more difficult to continue the conversations in the previous section and make it look as if your comment is not a continuation of the previous one in this case the section Contrasting phrases in MOS and MOSPN.

If you look at the dates on the these edits:

• Talk page: diff 17:39, 20 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (91,023 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Diacritics) (undo)
• guideline: 09:12, 22 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (→‎Diacritics: Replace current wording with guidance to look at the relevant section in the MOS)

That was a wait of over a day between making a statement on the talk page (with reasons) that I intended to make such an edit and executing the edit to the guideline!

It is thanks to you and your cherry picking of phrases from different guidelines, that brought me to this page. That you could read it in such a way to contradict the advise given on the main MOS page in a section that can be accessed via MOS:FOREIGN makes it clear that this guidance needs to be updated. This was being discussed in the section above Contrasting phrases in MOS and MOSPN, but you do not want to use the wording in place at the moment:

• Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is an established English spelling.

but to go back to the wording that says:

• Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters.

And also to delete mention of link to MOS:FOREIGN and some wording copied from the main MOS (placed here by me to make it clear what the main MOS says). Wording that I did not copy from FOREIGN, but seems to be under debate here, is that MOS:FOREIGN states:

• For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete.g

against the older incompatible wording of "well-established English spelling".

Iio: do you really think that guidance is improved when a subsidiary guideline gives advise that can be taken out of context and used to contradict the guidance in the main MOS page? If not why do you want mention of the main MOS page section removed from this guideline? -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip

Firstly, for everyone's benefit, it would be very helpful if you would recognize that yours/Kauffner/Makesense64/Ohms Law represent a minority view among WP Users as evidenced by the all but universal use of diacritics in BLPs (estimate approx 199,900 of 200,000 BLPs which could carry diacritics do) and not just BLPs. The physical evidence of the de facto state of en.wp is against your view/preference on this. The majority/de facto state of wp may not be "right," but at least it would be helpful if you would recognise it.

Do you recognise this?

Secondly,

that above wasn't an invitation for you to state your POV again, it was an invitation to Kauffner, Makesense64, and indeed yourself, to restore the status quo of the MOS article. If someone, or 2 or 3 people, want to make changes to MOSPN on diacritics, then they should not do so by edit-warring, instead they should initiate an RfC and invite all editors who have expressed an interest in the subject, as I did. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]