Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iceland/Style advice

Recognition of this guideline

I've been BOLD and kicked off this template and announced it as a guideline without actually consulting anyone, let alone asking for their permission. I've done this because I was more or less invited to do so (admittedly only by one person), and because the content didn't seem controversial.

I may be wrong (it could be controversial), and even if nothing in it is problematic, problematic material may be added to it later.

For this reason, I haven't yet inserted this MoS page in the relevant template (Template:Style), or done more than minimal linking to it. I strongly suggest that those who are knowledgable about Iceland and Icelandic (and I'm not one of them) sort out among themselves what the project page should say, iron out any disagreements and wait for the page to settle down a bit and only then add it to the template and start to advertise it vigorously. -- Hoary 05:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically fine and marking it as a guideline is fine too since it describes current practice accurately. Haukur 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised and happy to hear that. If one or two more people confirm it, then yes the page can be announced as a guideline. -- Hoary 14:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like it! --Sterio 13:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chocks away, maiden flight! -- Hoary 13:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good. I also want to point out that Trausti Valsson should be categorized like the Icelandic phonebook. Or at lease that's how I would do it. So, although it's tecincaly not needed, I'd recomend {{DEFAULTSORT:Trausti Valsson}} be added to any article where this has been of any confusion. And, apparently it has (example).

Good job Hoary! --Steinninn 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. If I got something wrong, don't hesitate to fix it. -- Hoary 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical ordering

Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir is defaultsorted as "Rebekka Gundleifsdottir". Is this correct, and if so, shouldn't it be written up here? -- Hoary 04:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, at least not if you mean in Icelandic normally, then ð comes after d, and it's sorted alphabetically like that. But if it's something MediaWiki does automatically, then that is an error, and I have no idea how such things would work :P --Sterio 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant that some person (or bot?) gave the article a defaultsort thingie that specified "Rebekka Gundleifsdottir". Being ignorant of Icelandic, I assumed that this was deliberate. But I now start to infer that the "n" was a typo. Of course it's common for languages to have letters that fit between letters of "the English alphabet"; one could effectively specify this with "DEFAULTSORT:Rebekka Gudzzzzzleifsdottir" but (i) the number of "z"s must be fixed, (ii) this would be a truly horrible kludge, (iii) maybe MediaWiki provides a better way (I haven't bothered to check), (iv) I gather that not all of you Icelanders (let alone non-Icelanders) are fully confident that Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir should be sorted within en:WP under "Rebekka" (there's an opinion that, though wrong in Iceland, "Guðleifsdóttir" might be better here). Despite being an Icelandic-non-speaking ignoramus, I have distinct opinions, but I'll shut up about them for now. -- Hoary 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a bug in MediaWiki that sorts non english letters wrongly. I'm to lazy to find the bug, but it's gotten a lot of votes, so hopefully it will be fixed soon. So, DEFAULTSORT:Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir should be used because the wrong sorting of ð is temporary. --Steinninn 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the two options (NB within en:WP, not is:WP) are

DEFAULTSORT:Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir

DEFAULTSORT:Guðleifsdóttir, Rebekka

which is better, and why? -- Hoary 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would use "Rebekka Gudleifsdottir" for categories consisting mostly of Icelanders and "Gudleifsdottir, Rebekka" for categories consisting mostly of non-Icelanders. It's better to sort 'ó' and 'ð' as 'o' and 'd' than to have them come after 'z'. As for 'þ' , I would be happy to have that come after 'z', I find it confusing when it's sorted as 'th' as is often done. But, really, as long as we have to suffer under codepoint sort we're always reduced to arguing about which kludge is least bad.

Note that in normal Icelandic sorting middle names come after patronymics so "Ásta Björk Jónsdóttir" is sorted as "Ásta Jónsdóttir, Björk". Whether we should use this convention on Wikipedia is not, of course, obvious. Haukur 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I may sleepily have my head up my -- er, wherever, but by consistent use of my multiple-z kludge (which I do not recommend), ð would effectively come after d and not after z. But it's grotesque; let's forget it.

"Exotic" [to anglophones] letters aside, Haukurth, you seem to be suggesting one or other of

DEFAULTSORT:Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir

DEFAULTSORT:Rebekka Gudleifsdottir

as opposed to one or other of

DEFAULTSORT:Guðleifsdóttir, Rebekka

DEFAULTSORT:Gudleifsdottir, Rebekka

Is this right? (Middle names seems a very minor complication to the former kind of rule.) -- Hoary 10:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a position on DEFAULTSORT. I think that currently the most common practice is to have "DEFAULTSORT:Gudleifsdottir, Rebekka" and then to override that for Icelandic categories. What do you see when you look around? Personally I would be fine with DEFAULTSORTing the other way around, of course. Haukur 10:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like it the Icelandic way around, DEFAULTSORT:Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir , even though it's not the Icelandic Wikipedia, the name is still the same. At the Icelandic Wikipedia we do it the other way around, we sort foreign names with their last name, we would feel silly to sort Albert Einstein as DEFAULTSORT:Albert Einstein, no we sort him by his last name. --Steinninn 14:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steinninn, an Icelandic name should stay in Icelandic format. But then again, in my situation, I am an Icelander with an Icelandic name living in USA and have an American passport. My name in university and phone books is organised accordingly with the American format of my surname first then my given names. I am not sure how they do it in England. But look at Korean names. In English, and Icelandic, we say Kim Il-Sung, not Il-Sung Kim, and same with Mao Zedong, not Zedong Mao. Right? So my final thought is to keep DEFAULTSORT:Rebekka Guðleisdóttir. Think in the mind of a student or researcher when they try to look up someone on wikipedia. But then again, do whatever you want, I am not even active on the English wiki lol. Just figured my situation living in USA bearing an Icelandic name and all would be of some interest or assistant.:) --Girdi 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not consensus; not policy; not a guideline

This misguided page was, as the first post here admits, created without consensus. It is contrary both to the MOS as a whole and to WP:NAME; it is consensus to spell names as English spells them. For many names, probably including Morgunblaðið, English uses the Icelandic spelling; for many it does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Where can we get consensus for it. It was promoted on Wikiproject Iceland. It has had a few weeks of changes from the community. I'd say it's a guideline alright. If this isn't, what is. --Steinninn 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You find consensus by finding what most Wikipedians agree with and proposing that; three Wikipedians from a single nationality and a single project are not "most Wikipedians". You verify consensus by advertising your proposal widely; {{RfCstyle}}, {{RFCpolicy}}, Village pump on policy, WT:MOS and WT:NC would be about the minimum here.

In this case, Use Icelandic is not consensus, and some of the editors on this talk page should have known that. This is the English Wikipedia, and Wikipedia: Use English is consensus, and supported by policy. There is, after all, an Icelandic Wikipedia, which does, and should, use its own spellings, not only for Icelandic places and persons, but for Britain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the tag as {{proposed}}, because the introductory line clearly declares it as a work-in-progress as per [1]. I would also caution against downgrading related articles like this just because of am on-going WP:RM debate over at Talk:Þingeyri#Requested_move.--Huaiwei 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Replacing with {{rejected}}. This may be salvageable, but not in this form, or with these ideas. I deplore Huaiwei's inaccurate and careless citation of our actual consensus on these matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindly change labels through concensus, just as you expect its acceptance to come from concensus also. See below for further details. Meanwhile, kindly cite just which citation you take offense with, for I have no recollection of ever citing anything amounting to a concensus between us.--Huaiwei 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson: You verify consensus by advertising your proposal widely; {{RfCstyle}}, {{RFCpolicy}}, Village pump on policy, WT:MOS and WT:NC would be about the minimum here. Minimum, tsk tsk. Why settle for not-even-half measures? If that's about the minimum, I dare not ask about the maximum, but what would "moderate" be? Incidentally, Pmanderson, what brings the sudden interest in things Icelandic? -- Hoary 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of Icelandic Commonwealth; I've been interested in "things Icelandic" since I got here, inter permulta alia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Since accepting this as a guideline would mean changing both WP:MOS and WP:NC to cater to a few nationalist editors, I judge its acceptance unlikely. But doing so would require discussion at both pages, as well as the other places to propose a new guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly mistaken when it comes to the existance of "conflicting" policies or guidelines. A simple look through amongst the naming conventions guidelines, and you will find, for example, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) dictating that the People's Republic of China should avoid being referred as China, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) requires similar special treatment to the term Ireland. Guidelines for specific topics can provide for special allowances, as long as there is community concensus to do so. While the formulation of this guideline is still in progress, you appear to be stemming its development, and right after my citation of this "guideline" as a result of a page move request. I would consider this action deplorable as well.--Huaiwei 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the Cause for which you have been misquoting policy and guidelines. The justification for being unambiguous on the People's Republic is that China is ambiguous; avoiding this ambiguity also avoids POV disputes. Neither Thingeyri nor Þingeyri is ambiguous; but the first is both clearer to anglophones and (largely for that reason) more used by them. Frankly, I don't care which China you are acting for; neither has anything to do with this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment isnt an invite for your comments on my political position pertaining to China, which is obviously unrelated, and that comment from you completely uncalled for. I cite these examples to demonstrate the fact that concensus made in sub-guidelines, or individual wikiprojects, can and do on occasion allow exceptions. The issue here is to justify this exception, which is clearly still in progress, and no concensus reached yet on whether it is accepted or rejected. For you to blatantly flag it as an outright reject with no further inputs from anyone here is jumping the gun, contravenes WP:CONCENSUS, and is not in the best interests of this site. It is for this reason that I have to revert you once again. Kindly reconsider your rather aggresive behavior here and allow common sense to prevail.--Huaiwei 04:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your revert warring, misquotation, and sophistry. If not, I will request further comment on the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's what turns you on. In the meantime, I've removed the silly and factually untrue label from the top of the guideline. -- Hoary 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The page accurately describes the current situation so I feel that calling it a guideline is reasonable. Don't say I didn't warn you, though, Hoary :) Haukur 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PMAnderson has, however, taken upon himself to simply delete an entire paragraph on this, presumably as his criterion not to revertwar.[2] Do review this please. Thanks!--Huaiwei 08:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, as my criterion not to put this waste of storage up for MfD. WP:MOS and WP:NC are consensus, and both are clear. I have now added direct quotations from them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, for while WP:MOS and WP:NC are born out of concensus, their applicability in all wikipedia articles is not automatically inherited. Kindly remember that almost all wikipedia policies/guidelines etc has room for exceptions. Do not overule this option just because you have a keen view on something elsewhere.--Huaiwei 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline, but no case for an exception for Icelandic names has ever been made; WP:NC is policy. My "keen view" is precisely on this issue; pages elsewhere are merely examples where the unfortunate nationalism of a handful of editors have attempted to impose a practice contrary to very broad consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear keen to can the very attempt to make a case for exceptions in Icelandic names even before it fully gets off the ground, so that's kinda ironic. And so what if WP:NC is policy? Why do we have sub-sections under WP:NC which are allowed to contravene itself? If your attempts here are a result of stemming "nationalism" sentiments, then I would consider that as bad-faith editing. I suppose by my comments here, I am suddenly part of the Icelandic nationalism cause?--Huaiwei 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Septentrionalis has now taken it upon himself to remove/reword sections he disagrees with and then plonk the {{proposed}} template back[3]. Hypocrisy at its finest?--Huaiwei 04:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. This version may actually attain consensus; I do not know if it will until it is advertised. The previous version, being contrary to long-established consensus on other pages, was not about to, and was therefore properly marked {{rejected}}. If this cannot be consensus either, then tag it accordingly; but then I see little hope of any consensus on the subject, and we might as well rely on our existing policy and practice of Using English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be obscure. Who so judged the previous version? Who marked it in this way? Who determined that so marking it was proper? -- Hoary 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson and Septentrionalis. That's concensus, no? ;)--Huaiwei 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

I have zero involvement/knowledge/interest in this topic, but Hoary turned up on my talk so here I am... It looks to me like there is some revert warring going on. It looks to me like Huaiwei and Pmanderson are involved, at least, maybe more. Knock it off. If I have to come back here I'll dig into who did what and block accordingly. Don't make me stop this car and turn around come back here, consider this a word to the wise, you all are experienced editors that know better than to revert war over templates, guidelines and the like. Some other admin may well have just blocked so consider yourself lucky. ++Lar: t/c 05:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was actually just a passing observer to begin with, and to actually revert war on a matter like this certainly isnt exactly worth my effort or time, so I don't think I am going to pursue this much further. Thanks for the warning and advice anyway...--Huaiwei 07:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Hoary is one of our most experienced and trusted editors. I take an interest where I see his work apparently being subjected to reversions without reasoned argument. I have this watchlisted. Tony (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, Tony, if this is true then the competition must be feebler than I'd imagined. Still, I do have nice legs. (Or so the missus tells me. But then perhaps she's just trying to avoid commenting on my face.) -- Hoary 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All lowercase in titles

I was wondering about film and soundtrack titles as well as other similar titles, some of them have been written with the first letter in each word uppercase like Allt Sem Ég Á (more). While others have been written only with the first letter in the first word uppercase like Ágætis byrjun. I feel the second version is better and would like the first one to be changed into Allt sem ég á as well as a small paragraph in the MOS (Iceland). --Steinninn 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Allt Sem Ég Á looks awful. Haukur 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Other peoples without family names

I'm wondering if we can maybe tie this guideline in with discussion of other peoples who don't have a family name system. I understand that e.g. Javanese, Burmese, Tamil, Cambodian, Ethiopian, Somali and Eritrean people don't usually use family names and that some of them have a patronymic system similar to the Icelandic one. I can't seem to find any Wikipedia guideline on any of these but I see that e.g. our articles on Eritreans sort and refer to them by first names. Is anyone here knowledgeable about this? Haukur 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Starting with what I know, patronymics (and matronymics) do see some use in the Faroes and are officially allowed since 1992. According to statistics from the Faroese bureau of statistics, approximately 4% of Faroese women have surnames ending in -dóttir and we can safely assume that those are active patronymics (it's much harder to find out whether a name ending in -son is an active patronymic or a fossilized patronymic). Examples include Vigdis Sigmundsdóttir and Eivør Pálsdóttir. I see that both of those are sorted by their patronymics but referred to by their first names. No idea how much sense that makes.

Patronymics are (grudgingly) allowed by Swedish law but see little use. According to [4] approximately 0.044% of Swedes have a -dotter surname so presumably about 0.1% of women do. The only English Wikipedia article I know on such a person is Ida Ingemarsdotter. You can see that her surname is a genuine active patronymic by going to her homepage - she says that her father's name is Ingemar. I see that she's sorted and referred to by the patronymic, also on the Swedish Wikipedia. I suppose that's what she'd expect.

Note that the preceding statistics only apply to patronymics as last names. Patronymics are also used as middle names, Russian-style, in the Faroes and Sweden. In fact that sort of usage is much more common, at least in Sweden (e.g. Cécilia Catharina Björnsdotter Rhode), and also exists in Norway (e.g. Ane Hansdatter Kismul). Since these people do have proper family names I don't think there are any issues. Haukur 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there's a template for Malay people with patronymics: Template:Malay name. Do you feel we need something like that for Icelandic names? Haukur 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note Template:Vietnamese name. It seems that the Vietnamese do have family names but don't use them as a form of address, even in formal style. This matches Icelandic practice, where someone called Páll Melsteð is normally referred to as Páll. Haukur 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested simplification

We now read:

The Manual of Style says:

The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besanc,on, Edvard Benes( and Go"ttingen, but Nuremburg, role, and Florence). Article titles follow our naming conventions.

Our naming conventions provide:

Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage.

When there is an English name for an Icelandic subject which sees more usage in English texts than the native Icelandic name, it should be used on Wikipedia [...].

This seems unnecessarily laborious to me. The bits that are quoted aren't particularly well written, and their quotation seems to oblige the authors of this page to make sure that they haven't become outdated. I therefore recommend simplifying to:

In accordance with the Manual of Style and naming conventions, when there is an English name for an Icelandic subject which sees more use in English texts than the native Icelandic name, it should be used for Wikipedia [...].

Would this be OK? -- Hoary (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I went ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is unduly complicated, and invites confusion. It is simpler to say that the English word for rimur happens to be rimur (as the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics will confirm) but the English name of Vestfirðir is the Westfjords. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to adding the "Wikipedia style guideline" category to the page?

The title says "Manual of Style", and it has the style bar on the right side, but this page is not in any category. I see there was some unpleasantness a few months ago. Does anyone have any objection to adding the "Wikipedia style guideline" cat to this page? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

MoS naming style

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) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC at Naming conventions (use English)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#RfC: Use of characters from the Icelandic alphabet that may be of interest to followers of this page. While that RfC is open, further discussion should occur there. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we really expect a reader to know how to parse Ð and Þ?

I know this has been suggested a few times ages ago and a consensus had never been reached, but I would still like to propose that we stop using Ð and Þ in articles.

I'm not particularly worried about the other accented characters, but it seems detrimental to use these specific letters. The Ð and Þ are not intelligible to a general reader, and the reader will not know how to search for these articles. The Wikipedia naming conventions suggest transliterating that which is not obvious in order to communicate an idea accurately and unambiguously. The accented letters can be obvious, but Ð and Þ are most definitely not.

We do not expect a reader to be able to correctly parse Росси́я as Russia/Rossiya. I feel it would be beneficial for the presentation of Iceland and Icelanders on this English-language Wiki if our naming conventions had the goal of making articles more accessible.

I do of course understand wanting to aim for "correctness", but I feel that accessibility and intelligibility are more important.

– Þjarkur (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)