Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/December

Requesting clarification on dual names

The section on "Multiple Local Names" states: "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first." At Talk:Senkaku Islands, the point has been raised that while this guideline strongly frowns on multiple names, it does not forbid it. I don't know how well watched this talk page is, but I have a few questions on this part of the guideline:

1) Are there currently any Wikipedia articles that have "multiple names"? As an example, there is a proposal that the name of the above mentioned article be changed either to Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. If such a proposal were to be seriously considered, would it be the only example of its type, or are there other dual-named articles?

2) Since the line quoted above implies that dual names have been tried in the past but failed, does anyone know of an example of this? That is, anyone know of any article histories where we could look to see the attempt at dual names causing equally bad edit warring to just choosing one name?

3) Assuming that, nonetheless, the "local" editors at that talk page really felt that there was no better solution, that there was no distinction between the two names, and that the dual name is actually one of the more common names used in English sources, where then would they need to go to determine if this breach, or at least, "bending", of the guidelines should be allowed? That is, assuming somehow the dual name got talk page consensus, could we then just move it to do the dual name? Or would we need to raise the issue somewhere "higher", like the Pump, or some other noticeboard?

Thanks for any input. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for any input here about what the name of that particular article actually should be. I'm just trying to figure out if there is any point in discussing a dual name at that article's talk page. In full disclosure, I have thus far argued that there is not). My worry is that even if we were to agree to the dual name, as soon as we moved it, someone else would move it back as a violation of the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1. The only place I know of which has a multiple name as an article title is Biel/Bienne, although there was some discussion about doing it for New Zealand places (did that come to anything?).
   • Biel/Bienne is quite different from the Pinnacle Islands (to choose the least partisan of the single names): Its naming and nationality are uncontroversial (on Wikipedia and I think in Switzerland); and the double name including the order is both official and customary.
2. For the background of that provision, see WP:LAME on Bolzano; IIRC that entry is quite correct, including the two move requests from Bolzano/Bozen to Bozen/Bolzano; almost all of the mess should have been archived by now.
3. This is a guideline; genuine consensus may ignore it. But if you are worried about someone moving it back after a thorough discussion, preferably aired at WP:RM, you probably don't have consensus.
   • On the other hand, this is a warning, not a prohibition. If you think you can get genuine consensus on a dual name, without perpetual move requests, and with a clear answer to newbies who want the name they were taught in middle school, there's nothing here to make it pointles to suggest it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a couple issues I would like your consideration and input. (1) As I understand (from what the guideline says and what is discussed above), the main reason for avoiding A_B or A/B is the ordering problem. But if everyone who opposes A would rather have A_B than simply A, i.e. taking one name means much less compromise that dual name, isn't this a more acceptable solution to all? and that would mean less likely moving/controversy in future? (2) if in almost all literary in English, be in academic or media, if A_B is becoming more and more prevalent, and from the simple syntax/serach perspective, A_B or A/B appears much more often than simply "A", isn't this a good reason to pose A_B as a candidate? i.e. one could view A_B is THE NAME adopted by academic and media, instead of a dual name. It is not "an artificial invention" by the wiki community just for this pupose. Thanks for your input.San9663 (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For me it's not so much the possibility of arguments over the order that's the problem; it's the possibility that once we start, people will start proposing this "solution" for all sorts of cases where there isn't really a problem to solve (Gdańsk/Danzig, Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna, Londonderry/Derry, Burma/Myanmar, Oder/Odra and so on - thousands of other places have alternative names) - I suppose we could name articles like this, it wouldn't be an entirely bad style, but we must be aware that once we start it will be hard to stop.--Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski, but the likelihood of order arguments is the final straw: if we are going to use long, clunky, unidiomatic forms, and not even get peace out of it, what's the point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, part of the worry on order of names is that, even if got agreement now, that won't stop others from changing it in the future. That is, once the partial step is taken (say to move it from A to A/B), then in a month or so someone might say, "Yeah, but now that a dual name is okay, it's obvious B should be first, so I' moving it to B/A." But that's not really a reason to stand in the way, as any consensus can change, so it's not right to object just because it makes things more volatile. So I suppose that one step would be, if the local editors on that article do want the change, to get a solid agreement that at least no one editing right now would propose a move to B/A. I also see the logic in Kotniski's concern that this could be bad for other articles. If in fact such a solution is chosen at Senkaku Islands, it might almost be worth adding a line to this guideline specifically to point out that the use of dual names is only acceptable when a large portion of reliable sources themselves use dual names (which may be the case here). That is, that S/D wasn't chosen as a compromise name, but because that's actually the name used in reliable sources (assuming it is). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable exception; let us know if compromise is attainable on those grounds. In fact, I have included a very limited statement on the acceptability of Biel/Bienne, since nobody seems to be disputing it on any grounds outside this guideline. If anybody can think of more restrictions, feel free to pile on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Norwegian example of Gáivuotna – Kåfjord seems to conflict with your wording. For a limited period it was the official name, but it is not now - and on the evidence of the article itself, the place seems to be most commonly referred to as Kåfjord in English. Arguably it should be moved, although Kåfjord is ambiguous, which might be the reason it has not been moved. Mhockey (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page strongly suggests that this is another ethnic naming dispute. I don't think this falsifies what I wrote; it may imply that the article ought to be moved - but to which? There is the difficulty that if Kåfjord is ambiguous, it may be hard to find out what English usage on this arctic hamlet is.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like I am late to the game. I agree that the name ordering of S/D and D/S can still be disputed, but that significantly lessens the degree of controversy even though that in itself is not a perfect solution.

Also, I personally doubt a consensus will be reached because numerous editors involved in the issue (mostly from Project Japan) seem to like nothing more than complete favour of "Senkaku Island" names. So, I'd be surprised if we don't send this issue right off to mediation. For more background, here's the thread and here's my summary of the issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

The city naming conventions for Philippines have been evolving, as per this recent successful move proposal. I've updated the guideline to reflect what is happening as best as I can understand it. At least it no longer states the preference is to add the suffix "City", which is clearly out of favor. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion notification

There is a move request to move Green Bay, Wisconsin to Green Bay at Talk:Green Bay, Wisconsin#Requested move. Because the outcome of this discussion would affect our article naming conventions, you may want to participate in that discussion. Please discuss at the linked section. Powers ^T 13:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)