Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/May

Order of names in title

In order to preserve neutrality of presentation, I suggest that we add a new section, /* Order of names in title */, that says in essence: Where multiple geographic names occur in a title, they should be placed in alphabetical order absent a compelling reason for another order. Examples Andorra–Liechtenstein relations; Otters of the Amazon and Orinoco deltas. This would be similar to the order of countries in lists, alphabetical in order to preserve as NPOV a presentation as possible. --Bejnar (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any disagreement? If not, I will go ahead and add it. --Bejnar (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have added the section as there was no objection. --Bejnar (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Toned down to "clear reason". We don't want to re-order Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe, and we may want History of Massachusetts and Connecticut (in historical order); yet it might not be compelling not to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

General guidelines

What follows is cut and paste from three months ago. Some of this is still here; some is genuinely redundant with other pages; but much is nowhere on Wikipedia, and should probably be restored; there is no guidance on these points at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused: I remember parts of this text as a policy. It isn't any more? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it (or equivalent wording) should still be present at WP:Proper names or WP:MOS#Geographical items or WP:Lead section, which are the places I exported stuff like this to when we were doing the merge with NC (places/settlements) and related tidying-up. We really must decide what this page is going to be about. PA claims in an above thread that the amount of coverage of related issues (I assume he means issues not directly about article naming) is decreasing, yet this is a proposal to put a whole load of such stuff back in. We need to know if this page is going to be (a) a one-stop shop for all placename-related guidance; or (b) a naming convention in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. about article naming), with incidental mention of and links to other related matters. Either solution is fine by me (provided (a) doesn't result in the page becoming too long), but if we do choose (a), then the page is crying out for a rename to WP:Place names or some such.--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• It was decreasing; then Kotniski took all of it out of here, put a small part of it elsewhere, and left much of it out of Wikipedia space altogether.
• What we need to do is insert as much of this as is consensus (and it was originally the result of a discussion between a large pool of editors) somewhere. This page will do; it's where people will refer to it, because they remember it being here; but some page should have the substance, and the others can summarize and link.
• Therefore objections to substance are now in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support restoring this text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And changing the name of this page?--Kotniski (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How is the current name not clear? You mean from geographic names to place names? I would have no problem with it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that as well, but mainly removing "Naming conventions" from the front of it. Otherwise people won't expect this to be the place to look for authoritative guidance on subjects other than article names.--Kotniski (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What of the text below addresses anything other than placenames? And the guidance below addresses a couple of ways to deal with the alternate placenames once the main name has been decided; in general, it will be referred to only after a naming discussion. If it is relevant at any other time, there are cross-links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I oppose Kotniski's entire suggestion. I oppose changing the name of this page, because it is already referred to by its acronym. Enough meddling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand. Why would a different page name not have an equally good acronym? (The old acronym could continue to be used as well anyway.) And "what of the text below addresses anything other than placenames?" is surely not an argument against calling the page "Placenames". The point is that it goes way beyond what Wikipedians would expect to find in a page called "Naming conventions (xxx)". I don't particularly support this usage of the term "Naming conventions", but since it's the one that operates, we ought to stick to it. --Kotniski (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, clearly you don't. It is desirable that the acronym match the name; it is desirable that the name and acronym which editors are accustomed to be retained. These could be overriden by any real advantage to the change, but none has been suggested; this twiddling is Jacobinism without its merits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The text is quite imperfect-what about situation where several historic names exist, rather then as the text writes there is a modern name and historic one. And what happens when modern name is just the same as one of the historic ones ?--Molobo (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address this above. When there are several historical names, and more then one used in English works with no clear preference, we need a clear rule to say what we should do. But other then that, I think we have consensus that the below text should be restored, yes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I also think that re-intorducing the "general guidelines" copied below would be very helpful. This clearly structured summary of our general approach to geographical names is necessary, and I can't think of a better place for it than this guideline.

  Article titles and general name usage within all articles are directly related, and follow the same principles, aimed at communicating effectively with an anglophone readership. To dissociate both aspects & treat them in different places only complicates matters, and ultimately would require writing a new comprehensive summary, adding yet more pages to read.

  The fact that our naming conventions are policy adds a further benefit for having this summary here, namely providing teeth to an issue that badly needs them. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and re-introduced the section (as of 01:25, 7 February 2009: the "text from January" copied below). - Best, Ev (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text from January

1. The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.
2. The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.
   • Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1).
   • Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.
   • Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
     • In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
       
     • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".
   • Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names. The formal version of a name (Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro for a header) can be substituted for it; extensive historic names are often better in a second infobox, as at Augsburg.
3. The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".
   • Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For more examples, some of them involving changes within the twentieth century, see below.

It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold the article title name, and its frequently used English language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script. (It is technically possible to bold or italicize Greek or Cyrillic names; but there is consensus not to do so, because they are distinguishable from running text anyway.) If this produces a garish first paragraph, consider moving the discussion of names to a separate section, or deemphasizing some of them.

Names not in Roman script should be transliterated (in italics). If there are multiple frequently used transliterations (again, used by at least 10% of the English sources), include them.

---

Postcodes in the UK

While I agree what is stated is preferable, I intend to start a page on the Hawksworth near Guisley, there is already a page on Hawksworth near Kirkstall. Both places lie in West Yorkshire within the City of Leeds, so I would say the best undisputable way to define them would be by postcode. Using the term 'Hawkswoth, Guisley' would be inacurate as it falls just outside of Guisley. I could use council wards, but I think postcodes would be better known, any ideas? Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think the use of postcodes is a particularly good idea. Outside the immediate area they are likely to mean very little to anyone. In the United Kingdom, most people outside Leeds would struggle to even realise that LS denotes Leeds, let alone get down to Hawksworth, LS5 being distinguished from Hawksworth, LS16 (for example). Normally, council wards are the preferred method of disambiguation if there are two places with the same name within a single local authority. However, in this case although Hawksworth, Kirkstall sounds OK, I have my doubts that Hawksworth, Guiseley and Rawdon is a particularly good description. If Hawksworth, Guiseley is not acceptable, how about Hawksworth, Aireborough, using the name of the former local authority and civil parish? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo for new arrivals

If anyone of the regulars were to add a short comment at Talk:Peć#Neutrality tag (read the last comments only), it could save me a potentially long discussion, for what I would be very thankful. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems stabilized. I haven't commented because I didn't think "Listen to Ev; he's repeating our conventions" would help - and that's what I think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case. I was being pessimistic based on previous interactions at Talk:Kosovo; my bad. Thank you for checking the issue :-) - Best, Ev (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Berne

Another outcropping of "It's the local name" at Talk:Berne#Requested move. In this case, the argument is whether we should move to Bern because it's a German-speaking canton. At least this isn't linguistic rights, like the South Tyrol. Comments welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The move has nothing to do with whether the canton is German speaking or not (it's actually both German and French speaking). The move back to Bern is proposed because this is the format stipulated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised to find so experienced an editor following an obscure project subpage blindly. The page was written by a single editor in 2005, and has been unconsidered since; it appears to be entirely redundant with this page in principle, and is replete with examples - some of them (as with Berne) are dubious as claims of fact. It should probably be marked historic. More on Skinsmoke's talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This project subpage just looks like a good faith attempt to establish order. This isn't exactly a tough case anyway, as Bern is both the native name and the main English name. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis is being a little disingenuous here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions is the page that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) directs users to for Swiss names {as he/she well knows, having made 14 edits to the directing page in the last 2 months}. It is therefore the most likely place that editors seeking guidance will look. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This page directs people to a lot of pages, a list picked up through merger. That is not an endorsement, merely a see also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)