Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (windmills)

Initial draft proposal

This is a proposed naming convention for dealing with articles relating to Windmills in England. This has come about because the windmills often have different contemporary names to when they were operational.

Proposed naming convention

• No longer extant - Use naming as at the time of operation NAME'S Mill.
  • If there is more than one mill with that name NAME'S Mill, LOCATION and disambiguation (otherwise NAME'S Mill, LOCATION is a redirect)
  • Redirects for LOCATION Mill, where alternative name has been used in the past or has become a shorthand for historic site.
• Extant - Use common name used now (i.e. name of museum), either NAME'S Mill or LOCATION Mill.
  • If there is more than one mill with that name, NAME'S Mill, LOCATION and disambiguation.
  • Redirects for NAME'S Mill and/or NAME'S Mill, LOCATION, where alternative name has been used at time of operation.

Examples

1. Battersea - article is at Fowler's Mill (the common name when existed/operational). Battersea Windmill and Fowler's Mill, Battersea are redirects.
2. Upminster - article is at Upminster Windmill (the common name now). Abraham's Mill and Abraham's Mill, Upminster are redirects.

Principles

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Discussion

As I've created many of the windmill articles, I welcome the chance to comment on this. Firstly, I'd suggest that the proposed naming convention should apply worldwide. All windmills on the various windmill lists have the potential to become articles of their own.

I'm in favour of having an heirarchy established. If a mill has a name, then that should take precedence over a windmill known by its location. Articles should not be under the name of a mill without a location being given. In many cases the plain name of a mill will be needed for disambiguation purposes - Old Mill, New Mill, White Mill, Black Mill etc. Use of just a location should be avoided wherever possible as many places had several windmills. Norwich has had over 50 windmills for example.

A further problem may arise in the future with translations of foreign mill names - White Mill / Witte Molen / Moulin Blanc for example. Should these go on the English language disambiguation or have their own disambiguation pages, with a "See also" section on each disambiguation page? Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Much in agreement, some things to consider:

1. Apply worldwide - agree.
2. If a mill has a name, then that should take precedence over a windmill known by its location - agree, unless the name has fallen out of use and has been replaced with a more common or official name, used in published sources, like the mill is now a museum called "Place Windmill" rather than "Name's Mill". Redirect old name to new.
3. Articles should not be under the name of a mill without a location being given - agree where "Name's Mill, Placename" is most commonly used in published sources and for all cases where disambiguation is needed. However, WP:COMMONNAME should apply for unambiguous cases where a simple naming of "Name's Mill" or "Place Windmill" is commonly used.
4. Use of just a location should be avoided wherever possible as many places had several windmills - agree, should only be used where it is the common name, used in published sources. Where there is more than one mill in a locality, "Name's Mill, Placename" should apply or other disambiguation as required.

re foreign translations, I would suggest redirecting to English language unless there are lots of articles to disambiguate. Otherwise there will be duplication. It is probably best to judge on a case-by-case basis. I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) might clarify this. MRSC • Talk 10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will copy this out of user space and into project space to open this up to others. MRSC • Talk 09:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Watermills

I've not started on watermills yet, but anything decided here can apply equally to watermills. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add that in now. MRSC • Talk 13:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Is it uncontroversial to stipulate that Mill, Windmill, and Watermill should be capitalised? Most articles are named that way, with the odd exception. MRSC • Talk 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that Proper Nouns had capital letters, hence the way I've created the articles. Hence White Mill, Sandwich and not White mill, Sandwich etc. The reason I've not used Mill for a windmill known by its location is that it could also refer to a watermill in many cases. For example, Ashbourne Mill as an article title could refer to a windmill (demolished) or a watermill (extant). Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is capital letters should be used in all cases. I'll add in about using PLACE Windmill and PLACE Watermill. MRSC • Talk 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)