Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Current discussions?

I observe that the Australia section has not been discussed for weeks. Why does it need a {{underdiscussion}} tag?

Similarly, does anyone other than Born2Cycle have anything more to say about the American section? Is his discontent enough?

I have removed the first, and would appreciate justification for the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that there is still discussion going on in the discussion about American cities.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
No, there was discussion last week; but is there now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
There was commented in that section about 25 times yesterday. I would call that a pretty active discussion.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The Australian convention, while not under discussion directly on this page or at WP:AWNB, is certainly still contested. There are current discussions at Talk:Rockhampton, Queensland#Requested move and Talk:Withcott, Queensland#Requested move. Indeed, there is little evidence that the Australian convention enjoys consensus given the results of discussions at Talk:Deniliquin#Requested move, Talk:Whyalla#Requested move, Talk:Geraldton#Requested move, Talk:Ballarat#Requested move, Talk:Eudunda#Requested move and Talk:Alice Springs#Requested move. A list of articles on towns and cities not following the convention as written can be found at User:Mattinbgn/Undisambiguated Australian places. Rather than remove the under discussion tag, it may be time to reword the convention so it reflects actual practice.
Incidently, the Australian experience does show how consensus can change in these matters. It shows that change will not lead to mass outbreaks of confusion among editors and readers. It also shows that change can be implemented gradually without huge numbers of RM discussions or "move wars" and at a pace that allows everyone to become comfortable with the process. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to word the Australian guideline that accurately reflects reality and does have consensus support? Well, I'll give it a shot...

Current wording:

Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital cities (such as Adelaide) and certain other places (such as Toowoomba) do not follow this pattern, and are titled just City. Mungindi, as a town crossing a state border, is also not disambiguated. Local government areas are at their official name.
Where further disambiguation is required, then the local government area name is used, in parentheses following the state name: Town, State (Local Government Area) (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).

Proposed wording:

Where disambiguation is required, use [City, State]. Where further disambiguation is required, then the local government area name is used, in parentheses following the state name: [Town, State (Local Government Area)] (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).
While many Australian town/city/suburb articles are at [Town, State] even when Town is unambiguous, the trend is to avoid unnecessary precision, and this is encouraged. Capital cities (such as Adelaide) and many other places with unambiguous names (such as Toowoomba) are already at [City].

Unless there is consensus support for this proposal or a similar one, I suggest the tag was removed prematurely. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree with the sentiment (and notwithstanding what I have written above), it may be a little premature to reword the convention just now. My concern is that a rewording of the convention will lead to editors going out and moving articles en masse, which certainly would not have support amongst those people who work on Australian articles at least, including me.
The current approach of seeking consensus for specific places and building confidence in the idea of undisambiguated article titles as a whole has so far avoided much of the tension that has been a feature on this page and elsewhere (and I am guilty of some less than temperate comments myself) and allowed the focus to be on finding things that editors agree on, rather than arguing about the areas where we don't agree. I would be loathe to start a discussion here where there is unlikely to be consensus for any view—and much heat reflected from editors using the discussion on the Australian convention as a proxy battle on the US convention— but would rather continue the confidence building on carefully selected articles and newly created articles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The present text is a matter of fact:

Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital cities (such as Adelaide) and certain other places (such as Toowoomba) do not follow this pattern, and are titled just City. Mungindi, as a town crossing a state border, is also not disambiguated. Local government areas are at their official name.
Where further disambiguation is required, then the local government area name is used, in parentheses following the state name: Town, State (Local Government Area) (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).

If this gradual process makes that statement untrue, we can rephrase it to what is then true. If there is no consensus to impose a rule which does not describe what does exist but what should exist, the solution is not to say what should exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I presumed that the dispute was about whether the guideline should provide more guidance, as opposed to merely reflecting the current situation. But since apparently there is no discussion or dispute regarding the wording as it currently is, then I agree the tag removal was not premature. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Then, following your interpretation, there is nothing in that guidelinethat prohibits that Australian place name articles being at their plain name. In fact, by your interpretation, the existing guideline does not even recommend that Australian place names be mandatorily and unnecessarily disambiguated. This sounds fair and reasonable to me. Mattinbgn (talk) -- 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Guidelines are generally descriptive of what actually happens. If nobody sees a value to titling an article Ballarat, Victoria - unlike Tallahassee, Florida - we should not prescribe it. Doubtless this reflects a difference in idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not Town (LGA) or Town, LGA? TopoChecker (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet'

I guess it could work but I personally would prefer a more conservative change in the first instance. For the sake of the half dozen articles that would be affected, I would be tempted to leave it alone. -- Mattinbgn (talk)
Disambiguators should be clear; Springfield is ambiguous far beyond Australia. As long as we have to disambiguate the place, I should prefer Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges), which tells me what part of the world it's in, to Springfield (Macedon Ranges), which doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I just came to my question when seeing that the LGA which is a lower level than the state goes to the right in the proposal. Here it is done different: Category:Villages in New York, Lincoln, Wisconsin (disambiguation). Also, if the disambiguation term shall clarify where in the world something is located, then some people might need to have "Australia" added and that should be added to the NC. It could then also be Springfield (Macedon Ranges), Victoria? My main concern would be the order of the elements. I think that should be codified. TopoChecker (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet
@PManderson. Good point re: knowing where a place is. If an article needs disambiguation, the disambiguation term should be something recognisable to the person looking for it. In Australia, knowledge about what state a place is in is widespread but knowledge of specific local government areas is limited. I think Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges) is clearer for people trying to find the article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
@TopoChecker. I think Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges) makes logical and aesthetic sense. On a layout level, it looks neater than the alternative Springfield (Macedon Ranges), Victoria. On a logical level, the term (Macedon Ranges) is disambiguating the topic "Springfield, Victoria" and disambiguation terms are normally placed to the right of the term being disambiguated. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed for aesthetics. Maybe aesthetics and logic don't go together well here, because the system has a flaw: Why have ", Victoria" if that is a dab term, but it is not a sufficient dab term. Also, why use two dab delimiters, "," and "()". And WP:PRECISION fails too.
  • My proposal: use "XXX, State", if that fails use "XXX, LGA". Springfield, Victoria should be a dab. TopoChecker (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC) This comment was made by a banned sockpuppet

My suggestion, is:

  • use a state name if it's necessary and sufficient to disambiguate
  • if it's insufficient, follow the ABS State Suburb name—usually there'll be a link for the population so it's trivial to find

The ABS doesn't have a state suburb for every locality, but it probably has one for every significant one. Additionally, its terms are more intuitive than simple LGAs and correspond far more closely to how I'd describe a place ("Hillside, it's a suburb of Melbourne", not "Hillside, it's a suburb split between the Shire of Melton and the City of Brimbank").

As expressed, it implies dropping the state name. I don't see any particular reason to include it, if there's no reason to include a state name on unambiguous cases. Include it only if it does work!

—Felix the Cassowary 18:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying the Australia section

I support the proposal above to add the words the trend is to avoid unnecessary precision, and this is encouraged. It's true, and will save a lot of wasted time. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Rockhampton#Requested move for what I see as overwhelming support for this or a similar change to the convention, and also overwhelming evidence that it urgently needs clarification. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the under discussion tag.

Please note the heat at the Rockhampton discussion, and the several other similar successful moves quoted there. It is time to fix this and move on. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The direction and nature of the "trend" is an opinion and doesn't really belong in this guideline.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you distinguish "opinion" from "guidance" in a guideline? Should we reject Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. because it is opinion?

If we merely reflect how things are then it's not a guideline but just an explanation of what the convention currently is. While our guidelines are supposed to reflect how things are, they are not supposed to be exclusively restricted to that; they are supposed to provide guidance as well. In fact, that's the justification for the "canonical form" wording in the U.S. guideline - which also goes beyond mere reflection of how things are. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do any other guidelines attempt to describe trends?   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if any other guidelines attempt to describe trends. Has your objection now shifted to being about the specific attempt to describe trends, or is it still that opinions don't belong in guidelines as you originally stated? If it's the latter, I suggest all guideline are opinions, opinions that are supposed to be supported by consensus agreement (which, by the way, the opinion stated currently in the U.S. guideline is not). If it's the former, why are you objecting to that specifically?

Or, are you just objecting for the sake of objecting because you just don't like it? If so, that would be disruptive, so I presume it's not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The point of a naming convention is to inform editors about how to name articles. It isn't to provide opinions about naming conventions.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not understanding your fundamental objection, and, frankly, I'm not sure you do. It would help if you would answer the question Mattingbn raises below... about why you think describing the trend is an "opinion". --Born2cycle (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
@Will. "The point of a naming convention is to inform editors about how to name articles" I disagree, The point of the convention is inform editors on how articles are named. A small but subtle difference. The latter is descriptive, the other is prescriptive. The latter is guidance, hence the word "guideline" and your wording is statute law. WP:AT is policy, WP:NCGN is about how to apply that policy, not how to contradict it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, but none of that explains why we should start adding opinions about naming trends to the naming conventions.   Will Beback  talk  09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, please explain what you mean by "opinion". The term "opinion" here could be interpreted any number of ways (google dictionary gives me six definitions), and you have not elaborated on what you mean.

On one hand, we have "The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people", and per that much of what is said in any guideline is an "opinion" (that is supported by consensus), so nothing is being started here by adding yet another such "opinion" in the guideline (after making sure the "opinion" does seem to reflect the views of a large number of people - and so far no one has expressed disagreement with the "opinion" in question) - that's just what all guidelines are comprised of.

On the other hand, we have the "a view not based on fact or knowledge" interpretation, but Matt argues below the phrase in question is arguably fact (or at least well rooted in knowledge), not "opinion" in that sense.

So, frankly, regardless of what you mean by "opinion", your objection doesn't seem to make any sense. But maybe there is another meaning you have in mind? Please, enlighten us. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you think the trend is merely opinion. It seems to me to be established fact. The results of recent RM discussions are (in rough reverse order)
This seems to be a pretty clear trend to me. In addition, if you look at each move in sequential order, the proportion of support for each move has increased over time.
I am not convinced that now is a good time to have another discussion about changing the Australian convention. A process of gradual change is working well at determining where community consensus lies. I am not convinced the guideline needs changing at this point - it is still a statement of fact. A huge RfC like the recent American one will generate more heat than light and tend harden positions rather than find common ground - not to mention will be used as a proxy way for the US convention. I am also concerned about the prospect of a mass renaming or a flood of RM discussions should the guideline wording change - this would be unlikely to have consensus among the editors working with Australian places articles. But if we were to change the wording of the guideline, a mention of the (very real) trend would worth including. I would not at this stage include "this is to be encouraged" as I don't think that is where consensus lies (yet!) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
My concern is simply to save time and trouble. I think either convention works acceptably well, frankly. But it's obvious that consensus has changed to some degree, and so the guideline should change to reflect the current consensus, otherwise it does more harm than good.
The opposition to the renaming of the Rockhampton article was almost all on the grounds that the proposed move violated the guideline. I'm not even sure that it does, but that at least needs clarifying.
My objective is not to impose a new standard, but simply to accurately reflect the consensus that is already being followed, as evidenced by the Rockhampton result and others. Andrewa (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:Condobolin, New South Wales#Requested move. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I really don't care whether you opt for Placename, State or Placename as the format, but for heaven's sake opt for something, and stop cluttering up WP:Requested moves with proposals for every outback toilet stop. If the existing Naming Convention no longer enjoys support, remove it completely. Personally, I would go for Placename; if there are two or more then use Placename, State; if there are two or more within the same state then use Placename, Local Government Area. There is no need to be over descriptive: the purpose of a disambiguator is to disambiguate, not to provide directions on how to get to the place! Skinsmoke (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Cluttering up? There is one (count 'em, one) RM discussion on an Australian place at present which has had exactly four people commenting to date. In fact since September 2010 (5 months ago) there has only been 10 RM discussions (around 2 per month) on Australian place names. This is hardly "cluttering" or "disruptive". If you aren't interested in the discussions in question, don't participate. If you want to see "disruptive", start an RfC on Australian place names, that will be disruptive. Even more disruptive would be a potential mass renaming of Australian articles if the current wording of the convention (which BTW does not mandate anything, it merely states the current facts on the ground) was changed. The move wars that would likely result as a result of the mass renaming would be even more disruptive again. The facts are: There is no consensus for any Australian place name convention at present and trying to force one into existence through brute force is futile (see the US discussion for an example or indeed Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36#RM -- moving forward). Some patience while the community considers its position would be appreciated. Even if the wording of the convention changed (and I strongly support such a change), I would still suggest some sort of consensus-based process such as RM take place before any article is moved, to avoid move wars. As for "Outback toilet stops", by Australian standards most of the places discussed are reasonably populated. Wait until discussions on places like Booligal, Useless Loop and Oodnadatta take place! :) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've taken you're idea on one of those. Nightw 12:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Condobolin, New South Wales#Survey: Oppose The proposal is contrary to the Naming Convention for Australia. Andrewa claims that there is no longer consensus to support the convention. However, those proposing a change have been unable to muster a consensus to either change or scrap the convention. Until they can do so, no change should take place on individual articles, rather than the situation we currently have where somebody brings forward a proposal every two or three days. Are they intending to carry on with this until they have circumvented the convention for every single settlement in Australia? And at that point will somebody finally decide to sort out the naming convention? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of this, see my reply there, but it underlines that the current situation is unsatisfactory. We have a convention that clearly does not have support, yet because there was at some time in the past consensus to adopt it, in some people's minds it remains in force.

If we can't agree on the wording of a new convention, then we should at least agree to suspend the old one. It is doing far more harm than good, and wasting a lot of time. Andrewa (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It is obvious that the old naming convention is no longer viable. Several requested move discussions on individual places have resulted in clear consensus to remove the disambiguation, except in one or two cases where the name was found to be actually ambiguous. Since guidelines are descriptive, this one should reflect what is actually being done- and that is that Australian places are not mandatorily disambiguated. The idea that the guideline should remain in force until it's actually repealed is a bit of a furphy. It is a contradiction or exception to a global naming guideline that enjoys widespread agreement, and therefore needs continued support to remain in place. That support no longer exists. We have a local guideline that conflicts with the global one, and with local consensus on the individual articles, and there is no consensus that it should remain in place. It needs to go. Reyk YO! 03:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the results of recent RM discussions such as Talk:Alice Springs#Requested move and Talk:Condobolin#Requested move I am taking the liberty of being WP:BOLD and moving the articles on the cities of Warrnambool, Mildura and Shepparton to their unambiguous plain names without the unnecessary state name disambiguator. If anyone objects, feel free to revert and we can then discuss the matter - preferably directly at WP:RM. I know what my personal preference is regarding unnecessary disambiguation but I do not pretend to know where community consensus on Australian place names currently lies, except that the current guideline no longer reflects current practice. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Another go at a reword of the Australian section. This is much simpler than the existing wording and appears to reflect current consensus at recent WP:RM discussions.

Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at [[Town, State]] no matter their state of ambiguity but the undisambiguated [[Town]] is also acceptable if the article has a unique name or is the primary topic for that name. Local government areas are at their official name.
Where further disambiguation is required, then the local government area name is used, in parentheses following the state name: [[Town, State (Local Government Area)]] (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).

This wording reflects the situation where most articles are presently disambiguated and the recent trend in RM discussions to move away from this. It does not mandate one form over the other and this seems reasonable given that there does not appear to be consensus for one form over the other. The downside of course is that the guideline will not act to resolve a move discussion one way or the other. That said, the current guideline does not appear to either. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. And what you say is a downside is not really a downside, since a guideline section that clearly doesn't have consensus support shouldn't be being used to "resolve" discussions at all (if it even had the power to do so).--Kotniski (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There has been no objections so I have been bold and reworded. Feel free to revert and discuss if opposed. I have taken the liberty of removing the discussion tag as well. If there is no objections over the next day or so, then this discussion could be closed. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to New Zealand conventions

Hi, late last year, discussions were held at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Draft_change_to_conventions and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Draft_addition_to_conventions. In summary, the first change does away with an existing departure from the general naming convention: Geographical features needing disambiguation will now use parentheses rather than commas. The second proposal adds conventions for dual and alternative place names (explained in its preamble), based on Government policy and general usage.

Since discussion has ceased on these proposals, I move that they be implemented. Since I was heavily involved in the drafting and initiated the discussions, I ask that someone look over them and adjudicate whether consensus has been reached. dramatic (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is one point that came up in discussion and seems unresolved. If Waiau River in Canterbury is the prevalent New Zealand idiom for disambiguating within NZ, I see no particular reason not to use it; it's perfectly encyclopedic. Other than that, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It would break down in some instances, because we have a couple of official region names which are not common usage: Tasman (where colloquial use is still "Nelson") and "Whanganui-Manawatu" which is two cumbersome. One thing that we are fortunate in is that the baoundaries of New Zealand's regions are defined by watersheds, so no river is in more than one region - although we do have some instances of two rivers with the same name in the same region, and two in the same district in once case! dramatic (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Townships

As an example of a universal convention, this guideline says that articles on Townships in the United States are called Township. This is almost without exception, but Kotniski has found Irvington, New Jersey which is one exception, and there are some others. (Both Irvington, New Jersey and Middletown Township, New Jersey sould idiomatic to me, so a move is not useful.)

Rather than a contest between trying to keep a parenthetical example uncluttered and pedantic accuracy, can someone think of a different example, preferably with (like this one) a large number of instances? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that NJ is a bad example since it is far from clear that this example is valid in common use. I had noticed it and was going to bring it up, so thanks for doing this. I seem to recall a discussion about this about 4 or 5 years ago on naming for boroughs, I believe, but I don't recall where. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of the first 200 listed at Category:Townships_in_New_Jersey, I count 32 which don't follow the format. I don't know anything of these entities and have no opinion whatever on what they should be called; I just don't think that the guideline should be implying counterfactuals, and I don't think that 85% is as close to "all" as would make no odds.--Kotniski (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well ask those in the area what they call East Brunswick Township, New Jersey? East Brunswick will be the common response. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I replaced this in the guideline with the example of Italian provinces, which is just as good an example and not controversial, so hopefully that's solved the immediate problem. If someone wants to change the way we title U.S. township articles, then that can obviously be proposed separately.--Kotniski (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Quite often (not always) these are natural disambiguation; Freehold Township, New Jersey is disjoint from Freehold Borough, New Jersey; for others they are idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A change to reduce edit wars

Long, long time ago, I drafted some our our current general guidelines. The wording of much of that draft survived till today. Recently, I realized that a part of it has an unfortunate effect of encouraging edit wars and nationalistic editing. I refer to the following part:


The problem is that editors are warring over whether such a section can be created, or whether to remove them (a recent discussion). The guide does not suggest they have to be moved, it allows for the names to remain in the lead (ll alternative names can be moved to), but when they are moved, a problem occurs. Further, I see many articles that are quite stable with both the alt names in the lead, and in a dedicated section (Wrocław University, Kraków, Gdańsk). This creates a double standards that favors nationalist editors and edit warriors: places not frequented by nationalists will have names in both lead and a dedicated section, because nobody sees a reason to remove a valid piece of info from the lead, they are acting on the motives to expand the article. However a places where nationalist editors are more common will see a removal of alt name from the lead, defended with our policy. This was not the intent I had when I proposed this wording years ago.

There is, frankly, no reason not to include those names in the lead, even if the article has a dedicated naming section. As a user can be redirected to an article from an alt name, he may be confused by not seeing the name in the lead, and naming section can be beyond the first screen.

So to summarize, the wording divides Wikipedia into to parts: one where there is no nationalistic POV pushing, and where article can have informative information in a dedicated section and summarized in the lead, and another one, where nationalistic POV pushing removes useful summary (names) from the lead. This is not a good outcome.

As such, I'd like to propose that we remove the misguided wording I added years ago. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the current strong wording seems out of step with practice and common sense. Once we have a dedicated section on names, we don't need all the alternative names in the first line, but if there are one or two that are particularly significant (and not necessarily the current local name), there's no reason to actually forbid their appearing in the first line. I would keep the wording, but broaden the exception to say something like "a local official name or other particularly significant alternative name..". --Kotniski (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, 'particularly significant' sounds like a recipe for even more argumentation - do we really need that? We already have a good working mechanism for alternate names. With a link to the section as recommended in WP:Lead - Foo (Foobarian:Fu; other names exist), they're just a click away. Novickas (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Piotr says no reason not to include those names in the lead. But there is such a reason. Clutter makes some leads unreadable. The usual, non-nationalistic-POV-pushing, reason for creating such sections is that moving the parenthetical material makes the lead more readable, hence useful. I would rather that the nationalistic-POV-pushing editors win one, rather than that we have cluttered leads. At least the nationalistic-POV-pushing editors are reading and citing policy and guidelines, which is an improvement. Nationalistic-POV-pushing changing of article titles is a related and more serious problem. On a related topic, the phonological parenthetical entries are clutter. Should they be relegated to a footnote? --Bejnar (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I find the phonologic stuff kind of cluttery too, but maybe it's just because I'm not used to the transcription system and the 'listen' thing never works right. But because it's done at many name articles, not just geographic ones, perhaps it's better taken up at WP:Lead. Novickas (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Without wishing to offend anyone, my experience of other language names in leads is that they function in practice as nationalist scent markings. Little more. Editors of Nation X come and leave their marking on Place A in Nation Y to assert some kind of historical or ideological property ownership/claim. Usually the only people wanting to see A's X-name is a member of Nation X, and they know it already. For the rest, we have the interwikis. I think we should be strongly disposed to remove such sections whenever they become subject of an edit war. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
So you think that "Danzig" should be removed from "Gdansk", "Breslau" from "Wroclaw", "Stettin" from Szczecin, not to mention reverting something like 80% of all of HerkusMonte's edits [1]?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't say I approve of most of those edits. It's true that lots of places in the Slavic world had German names (though sometimes, like Szczecin, it's the same name with different 'national orthography'), but I don't think these are relevant unless the names are of historical significance or are widely used in English (Breslau, Danzig and Stetting probably count here); in those cases this should be in the main text with citations not just in brackets at the lead, where it looks like simple nationalist scent-marking and is thus provocative. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
A proper etymology section is always welcome. Till such a section is added, lead is often a good place to add significant other names. The problem is that the current NCGN policy suggest we move the names from the lead to the dedicated section. Yet WP:LEAD states that important information should be summarized in lead. Once an article has a good etymology/names section, shouldn't some mention of the significant former names be allowed (back) in the lead? PS. It is quite right that warring over the names is nationalistic disruption, but let's note that just as often nationalists add the names as they remove others they find "offensive". PPS. Hence, when editors are warring over a name, often it is not two disruptive editors, only one - just as majority of reverts on this project are not two vandals reverting one another, but regular, neutral editors cleaning up vandalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to both Deacon and Piotrus - I'm fine with doing it either way, as long as there is consistency so that a particular group doesn't get singled out for either privileged or anti-privileged treatment ("we get to put names you don't like in your articles but you don't get to put names you like in our articles"). The thing with Breslau, Danzig, and Stettin is that yes at one point that was the major usage in English but it has been declining in favor of Wroclaw, Gdansk and Szczecin ever since WWII, this trend accelerated first in the 70's then once again after fall of communism so that by now none of the old terms can be said to be really widely used in English, except in some historical context. But the same is true for Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius, and in fact if you're going to make the "widely used in English" argument it STILL applies to lots of Lithuanian places in good measure because the names of these places were imported into English from Yiddish/Polish-Jewish and hence correspond almost exactly to the Polish names.
But overall I'm fine with the proposal that this should be in the main text with citations not just in brackets at the lead (I assume you mean "not in brackets at the lead" since the "just" implies it could be done both ways which I don't think is what you're saying - if I'm misunderstanding, please clarify) - as long as this is followed consistently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
At first, I don’t think it’s helpful to accuse others of “nationalistic” motives. A lot of places in Eastern Europe had an ethnically mixed population for centuries or changed their ethnical composition completely after WWII. To mention the traditional name of such places, used for several centuries by the local populace, is an important encyclopaedic information that should not be hidden in a sentence like “it was also known as...” just somewhere in the article. You might also switch the perspective and say, to conceal a historical name is the last stage of ethnical cleansing and as such deeply nationalistic. Both views aren’t helpful at all.
Talking about Polish-German places the Gdansk vote has already regulated the issue: “For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig).” The first reference in an article is the lead section.
My personal opinion is, that this is how it should be practised all over Eastern Europe, especially as Lithuanian editors already added Lithuanian names to places in Poland without any kind of a shared history (Morąg, Węgorzewo, Jedwabno, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship). HerkusMonte (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I personally haven't accused anyone of nationalistic motives. However, both Deacon and Piotrus have raised the concern that such motives may lie behind a lot of these edits, and anyone who's been around on Wikipedia long enough knows that at least some of these edits are probably driven by such concerns. In fact the examples you give in the last sentence speak to that.
Second, some people have claimed that the present naming conventions "supersede" the Gdansk/Danzig vote. Also the Gdansk/Danzig vote does not say that the alternative names need to be included in the lede (though one could interpret the 4th point of it in such a way). I have no opinion on the matter but I do think it is important for there to be consistency.
So perhaps for the sake of consistency we should write up two proposed wordings here - one which would mirror the GDanzig vote and allow for inclusion of alternative names in the lede and another one which would confine them a "Names" or "Etymology" section - and see which one has more support. My interpretation of the current guideline is that is more along the lines of the first one of these but there's obviously some folks who think it should be changed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The Gdansk vote was manipulated and its outcome was decided by non-neutral editor, it serves nothing more than to encourage numerous edit wars to push often obscure or even Nazi era names into numerous articles. In my view we should eradicate the unneeded past naming from the lead and use the modern name in articles about the city. Past versions of the names can be in etymology or name sections.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly far too much national pride and too little constructive encyclopedia-building behind these edits. We can alternatively laugh or cry at the bizarre actions of some editors over the years to eliminate (or hide away) all mention of the fact that places in Lithuania have been called different things in the past (or even in the present); but that's no excuse for damaging articles on places in, say, Poland in the same way. Alternative names clearly belong in the article; generally speaking they belong right at the start of the article (just as they do in articles on other topics, e.g. people, plants, which have more than one name), regardless of whether there's a special section devoted to names; but if there are so many alternative names that it's more convenient to refer the reader to such a section than to fill up the first sentence with a long list of relatively insignificant names, then better to do that - but that doesn't necessarily mean that all names (including those that are definitely not insignificant) have to be moved there.--Kotniski (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, what I think is important is consistency. There's absolutely no reason why a small group of editors should be given an exemption from general naming policy - whatever it may be - and effectively told "these rules don't apply to you, revert away at will" simply because they are unwilling to accept general consensus, whether it is because of "too much national pride" or nationalistic feelings or whatever. That is why the policy needs to be clarified, or, if enough people think there's room for improvement, changed AND clarified.
Additionally this kind of double standard creates confusion. An editor gets reverted at article X and told "you cannot put this in here per (WP:UNDUE, WP:DICTIONARY, etc.)". The editor then says, ah ok, then that means the same thing is true at article Y and makes the edit there in line with what they were told. But here all of sudden another editor pops up and says "you cannot remove this in here per WP:NC or WP:GDV". And then the editor in question gets dragged to AE by some misguided admin for edit warring where all they were trying to do is follow Wikipedia policy.
"Go to the church of your choice, but go damn it!". Pick one and stick with it. Can't have either/or.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is a key point. What happens is that editors in most places don't care if the names are in lead, even if they are in a dedicated section. However, the current wording allows a bunch of nationalist-POV pushers to create small pockets of "purity" (foreign names out!) in the articles they care about. This was certainly not my intention when I drafted the wording years back, and I see it as serving no really useful purpose now (I don't even recall why I added this in the first place). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the its better to have past version of the name of the city described in Name or Etymology of the name section. The lead should have only current name to avoid nationalistic edit wars-hence no Lwów in Lviv lead or Breslau in Wrocław lead.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, here's an offer. Someone sees an edit war on LT geographic places, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll add alt names using the US Board of Geographic Names. I find it easy. Further, I've always found their variants in EN sources, and that those sources contain useful info. For example, Druskininkai, the variant Druskeniki [2] for history and Druskininkay [3] for history and earth sciences.
This wouldn't solve all the recent PL-LT first-sentence-parenthetical-inclusion-of-Polish-name edit wars; there was a church (strictly speaking, not a geographical place) and a village with a population of seven.
But it would mitigate the problem, maybe other people would figure out how to source the Geonames board site or use the Jewishgen databases, and it follows the LEAD guideline, which I'm not alone in liking - in terms of policy it is, I think, a very closely watched train. Many of the articles at issue here are not. Mumbai is, and is a Good Article - check out its Toponymy section and imagine what the first sentence would look like if it included every historical name, or its name in one of the many languages in that country. Why should we create a special clause here that disagrees with LEAD and would call for an exceptional sentence there? It hasn't, AFAICT, been the subject of the extraordinary conflict that led to the Gdansk vote. Novickas (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll interject here with a rather radical suggestion. I think we should ideally rewrite this whole thing rather more thoroughly (although I'm aware it will be difficult to find consensus for just about anything). I've personally been an advocate of having alternate names mentioned quite often, but I've come to reverse my opinion, seeing that lead sentences get cluttered with useless information and there seems to be no way of stopping the "treat lead sentences the way dogs treat lampposts" mentality.

For lead sentences, we should use only one single criterion: a name gets mentioned in the lead if it has had some currency in English. This will typically include an official name in the current dominant local language (because even if the common English name is different from it, there are English publications such as atlases that systematically use official local names), and it may often include names adopted from languages that used to be dominant in earlier periods. However, these facts are not in themselves the criteria that should guide us. The only guiding question is: what names would an English-speaking reader be likely to have come across reading about this place before coming here?

For a later mentioning further down in the text, we should also use only one single criterion: a name gets mentioned if it is linguistically or politically interesting. Name variants that throw an interesting light on the etymological history of the current name, or names that are the object of notable political controversy and as such will show up as objects of discussion in reliable sources. For the latter criterion, it is not relevant that there has been a historical contention regarding the place as such, but that there is explicit sourceable debate over the name itself. In terms of what is linguistically interesting, mere trivial phonological or orthographical adaptations of a name from one language to another typically don't qualify.

Beyond these considerations, all arguments about what nations or ethnic groups have a historical connection to a place or some historical "rights" to it, should be totally, radically ignored and systematically excluded. We should not use geographical names as symbolic badges of recognition of the relevance of some ethnicity.

We should also clarify, once and for all, that all these rules apply only to names that are really, linguistically, proper names in a narrow sense. Phrases that are linguistically simple descriptions consisting of common nouns or adjectives, where the versions used in different languages are trivially predictable translations of each other (such as "X church", "X square", "X bay" or whatever), should generally not be provided, because they are trivial and redundant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Imagine somenone in the US is searching for his ancestors who once emigrated from Germany, Poland or Lithuania. They came from a small village and the only name he knows is the German/Polish/Lithuanian name his grandfather has told him. He has probably never heard of the shift of border of WWII. Wikipedia should give him a chance to find the right place, no matter whether this information might be "linguistically or politically interesting" to other people. Such a criteria would just foster the next editwar, because "interesting" is a highly subjective criterion. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with HerkusMonte, the alternative name should be easily available in the articles. In my opinion it should be in the lead but special section is also fine if there are concerns of sentences being cluttered.--Jacurek (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
FPS-that's far too many conditions that can be easily exploited by nationalists. It's best if we move the name alltogether from the lead. Herkus-Wiki is not a genealogy service site, perhaps you should find people interested in created in Wikigenealogy, I don't think there is one now, and it could be more of interest to you, seems a good idea to create one--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC).
If one and the same town has different names in different languages, then, clearly, all the names should be enumerated in the lead of the article. Anything else would be counter-productiv and highly chauvinistic. In The New Encyclopaedia Britannica of 2002 the problem is coped with as follows. For Breslau one finds the entry:
  • Breslau (Poland); see Wrocław.
Under Wrocław then one reads:
  • Wrocław, German BRESLAU, capital of ...
This way of treating it does not cause any problems - or does it? - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If one and the same town has different names in different languages, then, clearly, all the names should be enumerated in the lead of the article-Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I see no reason to add Chinese/Spanish/Esperanto/Finnish/Hungarian name to Wrocław lead. And writing in capital letters its Germanized version after Polish one in normal ones seems strange to say it lightly.Anything else would be counter-productiv and highly chauvinistic-actually removing the clutter to Name section where all names can be explained provides both the needed information about different names, deep explanation(for example Wrocław became Germanized into "Breslau" in XIX century) and history of the name-that can't be added in the lead. I suppose that is why the proposal to removal other names from the lead hurts some people, it could be explained in detail, withou the "nationalistic scent marking" as others named it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec):::::::::::Well, yes Kaiser, it does. More precisely it causes problems when this is consistently applied as some editors object to it. FP@S's suggestion, while fine for what it is, does not address the issue of where the alternative names should be placed in the article. Suppose we can agree which alternative names are of interest to English readers etc. (I know, I know, "assume a can opener") - should they go into the lede or in a names section? Second, the suggestion is too broad and abstract - we already know most of this so editors disagree on what constitutes interest to English readers (per Herkus). This kind of abstract and general suggestion needs to address specific potentially contentious instances. FP@S "guideline" would suggest for example putting "Wilno" and "Vilna" into the lede of Vilnius since these are used often in English sources. Likewise because of genealogical research, most places in Lithuania are known in English by their Polish names (usually through Yiddish or Polish-Jewish). If we accept Herkus' contention that because of genealogy interests, English readers are likely to be interested in these names, and hence we should include them, then that means Polish names in many Lithuanian places. But that is exactly what has proved so contentious here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read all the above and thought about it A LOT, I think it might be useful to distinguish between big-place/developed-article articles and small-place/stubby-articles. Stubby articles on small places are not going to have much in them anyway - in those, it might makes sense to keep the alternative names in the lede, until the article is expanded sufficiently. For big-place/developed-articles perhaps a name/etymology section is sufficient and there's no need for the alternative names in the lede?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This would correspond to the current wording, unless I am missing something. However, I do think that Danzig or Breslau are important and notable enough to be added to Gdańsk and Wrocław, even with a dedicated naming section. Yet some seem to prefer that Wilno does not appear in Vilnius. How do we resolve this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
With a dedicated naming section, as currently exists there, because Vilnius, Wilno, Vilna, Vilne, and Wilna all make thousands of Gbook appearances and it would be unproductive for editors to go into long arguments about which variants are most worthy of being in the first sentence. It follows LEAD guidelines in this regard, so perhaps you should take the issue there. Novickas (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it does correspond to the current wording then it needs to be clarified as obviously some people pretend that the wording implies something else - be specific about when to put it in the lede and when to put it in a names section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
A simple solution. Remove names from lead and create a subsection Name in the article where all the alternative names can be added and explained in detail. Apply to all cities regardless of their ethnic background to avoid nationalistic edit wars.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Simple is not the best. First we remove the "offending" names from the lead, what's next? Are we going to see a removal of all German history from places in Poland, and all Polish history from places in Lithuania? I for one am not looking forward to such an occurrence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Differing names belong in the lead without any exception (for ethnically mixed places or a shared history differing historical name), more details might be explained in a sub-section. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Per current rules yes, but as we see it leads to all kinds of trouble-like giving Nazi used names in the lead. It's better to have a separate section for names.As to shared history, that's not a really good idea, since all Poland has "shared history" for example with Germany as all of it was under Nazi German occupation. Using that logic all Polish locations should have German names.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
First we remove the "offending" names from the lead, what's next? I don't suggest removal but changing of the place, from lead to Name section. Unlike the lead, names and their history can be explained, this is a better solution.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Certainly it's often desirable to explain the name changes/differences rather than just write the (often quite misleading) Abcd (X-ish: Efgh) that has become the norm. But in many cases too an alternative name is of such significance that it would be surprising and pointy to omit it from the lead (like Danzig, which is not just "the German name" but the name used for the place in English when referring to it any time before 1945). So I don't believe we should be laying down immutable rules - indeed, I think current practice (as applied nearly everywhere, except in pockets like the Lithuania articles) has it just about right, and we should modify the guideline to reflect that.--Kotniski (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Actualy there is another solution like the one in Budapest article. The fixation on Lithuanian cities is a bit strange in this context.--Lokyz (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2011/March&oldid=1137425697"