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

Russia Locality Names

There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia that may interest a wider group as it has general issues for how we write locality articles.

Briefly:

1 - Igels thinks all locality pages should start with and emphasise the official description. I think that is not the Wiki practice, which usually is to start with a clear description of the place, preferably sourced, but which may or may not correspond with the official description.

2 - Even if it was the Wiki practice, it is not possible with Russia, because there is no good short English translation of the official terms. The literal translations used so far may be the best available, but they have very different connotations to English speakers compared with the Russian originals to Russian speakers.

3 - Consequently, many places where the literal translations are used, including the Set Index pages, should have further extra language to aid the reader.

Comments welcomed.

Thanks,

William MacDougall 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What does "geographic names" mean?

Hello. I need some explanations about the rule. What exactly is "geographic name"? Is it applied only to territories (I mean regions, provinces, towns, districts etc.) or we can use it for objects too (I mean churches, monasteries, cemetries, mosques etc.)? --Quantum666 (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:UCN, or more germaine WP:UCS. In general, if there exists a common english name, you should title the article on the object (church, cemetary, whatever) using THAT name. If there does not exist a common english name, then title the article using the best English translation OR transliteration as appropriate. You should always think "What name would someone expect to find this article under". --Jayron32 07:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Geographic names" includes all kinds of landforms, administrative units and populated places. I don't think these naming conventions apply to buildings, but I suppose you could use most of the guideline for buildings and structures as well. Is there a specific article title you need advice about? Markussep ^Talk 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the problem is not about the title but about the lead. I mean what foreign names (non-english) can be mentioned in parantheses? The article is Dadivank Monastery. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate any third opinion there. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Nagorno-Karabakh. I see the conflict is about whether to add the Azerbaijani name of the monastery to the lead. I don't know if there's a specific guideline for Nagorno-Karabakh. A useful quote from this guideline: "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution." To me as an outsider it's OK to add the Azerbaijani name, provided it's used in (reliable) English text. The trouble here is of course that the Nagorno-Karabakh republic is not recognized, and that de jure the monastery is in Azerbaijan. In a (remotely) similar case, Gračanica monastery in Kosovo, both the Serbian and the Albanian name are given. Markussep ^Talk 08:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum666 failed to represent any reliable sources using the Azeri name he is trying to add. He just transliterated it from Armenian name. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, please don't mislead other users making your allegations. Any user can see the article and the discussion himself. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation in the lead

Any objections to adding to the lead sentence which right now reads:

This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places.

to:

This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places, and their use in other articles.

This is not changing the guideline at all, but only saying what is already covered in the body of the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Made the change, since there were no objections.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of this, as this page was not on my watchlist. What is your goal with this change? In my opinion, a naming convention applies to the name of the article; once an article is named, it is linked from other articles using that name, so usage in other articles is not relevant to the naming convention. How do you feel your change is already covered by the body of the article? Omnedon (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had to inform you personally. This section was opened two weeks ago and there were no objections. The lead is a summery of the article. This only sums up the article which already covers this in General Guidelines #3, which says this applies to all articles using the name in question-Jojhutton (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to inform me personally; I was simply stating that I was unaware of your proposal and came across it by chance. Now that I am aware of it, I am commenting; there's no need to have a combative attitude about this. In any case -- this page describes the convention for determining the titles of articles about places. You seem to be placing undue emphasis on a parenthetical statement in guideline number 3; I disagree that this belongs in the lead, so I would ask again what the goal is with this change and why that particular statement is so important to you. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, I fail to see why you cited WP:AGF in your edit summary when you reverted my revert. You asked if there were objections, and I have an objection. This needs discussion, that's all. Omnedon (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First, the lead is a summery of the article, as this edit clearly is, so there is no change in the guideline at all. My goal is to summarize the article in the lead per WP:Lead. Second you may not be aware of it, but your accusations about my "goal" is worded very accusatorially, and seems to assume bad faith on my part. Third, I made the addition only after opening up a discussion and waiting a fair amount of time for a response, in this case almost two weeks. So your edit summery of Revert pending discussion, appears to seem as if I didn't attempt to discuss this at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no tone of accusation at all. All edits should have a goal; otherwise, why make them? I was simply asking what your goal was; why are you so sensitive to that? Anyone looking at this discussion will see that you asked for discussion; I was not immediately aware of this, but when I became aware of it I made a comment, and since I disagreed with your edit I reverted it until you and I could discuss it. You immediately reverted it again, which is questionable. To summarize -- you asked if there were objections, but in practice you seem to wish to disregard this objection. Omnedon (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no disregarding the only objection, but I fail to see why we shouldn't summarize the article in the lead. Its common practice and consistent across all wikipedia to do so. Why should your objection override policy?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarize an article's body. However, you cannot take my disagreement with your edit and make the leap this is an attempt to override policy. The statement you are adding to the lead is a parenthetical statement in a guideline, and in my opinion does not rise to a high enough level of importance to be mentioned in the lead. The primary purpose of this article is to describe the naming convention for articles about places; the current lead is a good summary. Omnedon (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So why shouldn't the lead summarize what is in the entire article? As it stands now, part of the guideline isn't even mentioned in the lead. It isn't given its due weight at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead currently summarizes the article just fine. We don't mention foreign names in the lead, or disambiguation, or natural features, or transliteration, and these items all have headings in the body of the article, whereas the sentence fragment you wish to add to the lead is in parentheses within the "guidelines" section. In any case, this is not an encyclopedic article; rather, it is a page that describes naming conventions within Wikipedia. So I would ask once more -- why is this particular statement so important to you? And what precisely do believe it means? Omnedon (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So if general guideline #3 already says that the entire guideline applies to all articles using the name in question, then what is the harm at stating that in the lead? Do you feel that it changes the scope of the guideline? --Jojhutton (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be in the lead. Since you wish it to be there, you should justify that. I'd still like to know why you feel that particular statement is important enough to be in the lead. Omnedon (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to be in the lead you ask? Because not every person reads the entire article. In fact, most will only ever read the lead of an article, so by summarizing what the guideline says rather than selectively censoring it, the reader will have a better understanding of what they are reading.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In an academic sense, I'd be very interested to see the data you would use to support the claim that "most people will only ever read the lead of an article". However, true or not (and I don't believe it is), that is utterly irrelevant here. That sentence fragment is not significant enough to be in the lead -- period. What I requested was a specific reason why this specific statement needs to be in this specific lead. Omnedon (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Data? Data? RU Serious? It looks like your just stalling to get your way. Read WP:Lead for a reason as to why it should be in the lead. It doesn't change the scope of the guideline at all, or do you think it does?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You have directed me to WP:AGF without need and have generally been very defensive; now you are certainly assuming bad faith on my part by accusing me of "stalling". I'm simply asking you for your reasons for this change. WP:LEAD does not answer them. Omnedon (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, WP:Lead doesn't seem to support the change. It states that a lead should be "a summary of [the article's] most important aspects," whereas the proposed change appears to be to highlight a single statement in the body — and a parenthetical one at that. This isn't to say to statement is unimportant, but instead just that to claim it's sufficiently significant to rise to that level requires an equally significant justification.

Joj, please AGF. Also, please remember that one shouldn't say that something is set just because it was discussed at some point in the past and there were no objections at that time. Consensus can and often does change as other editors become involved, which is to be expected. (See WP:CCC). As for the change itself, I don't see the need to explicitly restate that one particular point in the guideline's first sentence, particularly since point 3 seems to deal with considerations of antique versus modern names, or names in one language versus another. Doesn't seem like this one particular thing needs to be restated in the first sentence. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually #3 isn't just about antique words, just because that is the example given, but its easy to misinterpret.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, point 3 doesn't use considerations of history or language merely as examples — those are the main points. In other words, if an article is named Warsaw, then use that name (and not the Polish Warszawa) in the text. Also, if you have other related articles that deal with that city, then they too should use Warsaw. That's the point being made. The point is not that whatever the name of the article is, that's what must in every case be used in the content and all related articles, since this would be to invite ridiculous and awkward prose. For example, in the article on Scranton, Pennsylvania, must the text always refer to the town as Scranton, Pennsylvania and never just Scranton? Clearly not. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What's more, the Scranton article may use "Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States" in the intro; Jojhutton is simply trying to get justification for using this convention page as a justification for making US community articles less useful for people who don't know that names such as Pennsylvania refer to areas in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't think that I said that was the reason. Now who's assuming bad faith? In fact that is the worst bad faith assumption I have ever seen.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

England - county towns

(I've gone ahead and split these two completely as these are two distinct topics and resolving one doesn't address the other--Nilfanion (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)) There's a (sort of related) discussion on the VP at present relating to disambiguation. The discussion is really about the major English towns and cities: eg Cambridge is arguably being primary topic so should be disambiguated.

However, I'm concerned that the existing guideline (to use ceremonial county) clashes with WP:COMMONNAME in the case of important places, especially county town/cities that give their name to the shire county. Who in the UK would refer to Lincoln, Lincolnshire as anything other than plain "Lincoln"? Outside the UK (especially in N America) it would probably just get called Lincoln, England. For that reason, I'm wondering if X, England may be a better location for those places (if required) than X, Xshire.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree with that. So far most such issues have been avoided because UK places have tended to be treated as primary topics even when they might not actually be (because the US naming convention means those titles would not otherwise be used), but if we're going to see these rights of equality now being enforced, then I would certainly want to see Lincoln, England rather than the silly Lincoln, Lincolnshire.--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This was also discussed in August here. It did not attract much support (maybe people were too focussed on the "suburb" issue), but I agree that it does rather conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. The discussion then was on places unique in England but ambiguous worldwide, and only 2 places were identified then (Lincoln, Lincolnshire and Reading, Berkshire). But if the proposal is to use x, England for places which give their name to the county, that might attract more support. Depending on where the current debates go, it would be good to avoid titles such as Manchester, Greater Manchester, York, Yorkshire, Worcester, Worcestershire, Oxford, Oxfordshire, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Warwick, Warwickshire, or even London, London. Cambridge is a little different, because there are other places in England called Cambridge, but the city would clearly be the primary topic for Cambridge, England. --Mhockey (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't live there, but I actually prefer the form: Lincoln, Lincolnshire to Lincoln, England or Lincoln, United Kingdom. It is clear and immediately identifiable. --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends - many people (particularly outside the UK) won't know that the English city of Lincoln is in something called Lincolnshire. Meanwhile I don't think there would be anyone who knows what Lincolnshire is, or that Lincoln is in it, but doesn't know that it's in England.--Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As a quick test, did a few Google News searches for Cambridge, Oxford and Plymouth (regular searches are not insightful as they return postal addresses). Cambridge, Cambridgeshire = 1, Cambridge, England = 98. Oxford, Oxfordshire = 2, Oxford, England = 105. On the other hand, Plymouth, Devon = 51, Plymouth, England = 9. I think this reflects Kotniski's point: If you don't know where Cambridge is, you aren't going to know where Cambridgeshire is - so it doesn't help place it at all. On the other hand, its plausible that if someone does not know where Plymouth is, they may still know where Devon is.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth I've started a requested move at Lincoln's talk page - at present its the only exception (I think?).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln, Lincolnshire and perhaps Lancaster, Lancashire. Might be others. MRSC (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Village pump (UK naming)

During this discussion some have suggested automatically disambiguating all UK localities, save a few very large ones, by county. Effectively applying the US Locality, State convention. I'm fairly certain this would be very unpopular with UK editors? MRSC (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The US usage is supported by the AP Stylebook. To import that usage into English names would offend WP:COMMONNAME.--Mhockey (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)