Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, regardless of continuing discussion.

Currently the text of COMMONNAME reads (emphasis added):

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

I object to the bolded portion because it essentially guts the provision; anyone who writes up another naming convention can override it. I propose a change to the following wording (emphasis indicates added portion):

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication Title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). If it is not obvious what the most common name is, then other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions should be consulted to determine the best name for the article. The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

I believe this would bring it more in line with the injunction to use the name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and reflect the principle that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." The current wording gives far more leeway to specialists than it does to the general audience, and should be changed to remedy this. I am open to other suggestions on wording that would convey the same general intention. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this, as written, although perhaps too much credence is presently given to WikiProject conventions. The royalty naming convention has reduced some edit wars, and the place naming convention was reducing edit wars until [an editor] started acting as if the US place naming convention was a nullity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Redacted, per request.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not derogatory, but the name of the editor isn't relevant to this discussion unless he participates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not derogatory? Did you mean that comment to be complementary? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are three basic views about this issue.

1. Model 1. The first is the model in which WP:NC serves as a default (what the rules are if no more specific rules apply), and that more specific naming conventions can override and contradict what the WP:NC default rules say.
2. Model 2. The second view is the model in which WP:NC defines the fundamental naming rules, and that the more specific rules only apply when the fundamental rules don't provide sufficient guidance, in particular whenever "it is not obvious what the most common name is", or to provide guidance for how exactly to disambiguate when disambiguation is required and only when disambiguation is required.
3. Chaos. The third view is that we use both models, sometimes following the first, sometimes following the second, mostly depending on how the "consensus" addressing a given naming issue happens to be leaning at some given time.

In a sense, the third view is correct, because that's we have today, but the result is an endless source of dispute about naming because of the conflicting models.

This proposal to strengthen COMMONNAME goes a long way towards adopting Model 2.

It should be noted that there would be probably be very little change to royalty names if this change (or the full adoption of model 2) was put into effect. This is because most members of royalty do not have a clear "most commonly used" or "most recognizable" name, and so even with Model 2, the more specific royalty name guideline would provide the same guidance it does today.

It should also be noted that this is true about many other categories as well, such as plants. For example, the vast, vast majority of plants do not have well-known commonly used names, and, so, even with Model 2, the plant-specific WP:NC (flora) guidelines would specify how to name them. Only with respect to well-known commonly used plant names would their names be determined by the fundamental WP:NC rules. In the case of areas well thought-out guidelines like TV episode names there would be absolutely no change, since they wisely already "disambiguate only when necessary".

While both models lead to some inconsistencies, there are much fewer with Model 2, at least with respect to well-known topics. In both models each area has its own guidelines about naming within a given area, and nothing says they have to be consistent with each other, but at least in Model 2 all well-known "primary topic" uses of each name are named consistently per the main WP:NC guidelines. Only names that require disambiguation due to relative obscurity (because they are not primary, or because they are so obscure that there is no obvious name per fundamental WP:NC rules) are named per the more specific naming guidelines. Model 1 does provide intra-consistency of naming within a given area, but little or no inter-consistency among names in disparate areas.

So, in the name of reducing confusion, conflict, dispute and inter-inconsistency with respect to naming articles in Wikipedia, I support this proposal to strengthen COMMONNAME. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of reducing confusion, I suggest we should more clearly adopt model 1. The history of the confusion created when specialized guidelines were ignored in favor of WP:COMMONNAME make it clear that merely strengthening it would cause added confusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not incorrectly attribute the confusion created by the current chaos to Model 2. The chaos confusion/contradiction exists to this day, and more clearly adopting model 1 would not help. Cities in most countries, per their specific guidelines, are disambiguated only when necessary, while in the U.S. all cities except those on the AP list are disambiguated whether they need to be or not. Model 1 does nothing to address this confusion/contradiction; in fact it encourages it.

With respect to U.S. cities, the only reason the confusion/contradiction exists is because a majority insisted on make U.S. city names an exception to WP:NC. Contrast this with WP:NC-TV, for example, which states: "when disambiguation is required, use (TV series)", and add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name. In other words, disambiguate only when necessary. Simple. No confusion. No contradiction. If every specific naming guideline said this, there would be no confusion or contradiction at all.

Model 1 guarantees confusion and contradiction, like the inexplicable differences between articles within WP:NC (flora) (assume dabbing required and use the practically-guaranteed-to-be-unique but obscure Latin name) and those within WP:NC (fauna) (considerable priority given to most commonly used/recognizable name). By adopting Model 2 we would eliminate this confusion and contradiction. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Model 2 for me (hence I support the original proposal). It's a question of balance, but generally speaking, cliques of specialists shouldn't be allowed to make their own little rules that override a fundamental community principle.--Kotniski (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that I support Model 2. I also thank Born2cycle for bringing up the crux of the issue first; if we can't decide on what the underlying principles are, then putting forth a wording proposal is somewhat premature. Any wording which promotes Model 2 over Model 1 is one that I could support.--Aervanath (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

support model 2 per Kotniski Jasy jatere (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This policy should reflect what people actually do, not what we want them to do. Out there in the mainspace, people take into account a range of considerations, including commonness, consistency across articles, accuracy, neutrality, standardisation within a field, etc.

  Ornithologists have standardised the vernacular names of birds, and WP:BIRDS has long ago decided to follow this real-world convention; who are we to tell them they are wrong?

  Who wants to go move Metallica (album) to The Black Album (Metallica)?; you'll have to if the title Metallica chose for their album is no longer to be given any weight at all.

  Who wants to go tell the physicists to move gravitation to "gravity" because that's the term people use, and the fact that it would be wrong is irrelevant?

  Hesperian 00:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Let us not conflate the name of an article about a topic with the full/correct/official/precise/legal name of the topic.

  There is no right and wrong in article naming. Often they are the same, but often they are not, and when they are not, that is not necessarily wrong. In many cases the most commonly used name to refer to a given topic differs from the full/correct/official/precise/legal name, and the convention in Wikipedia to deal with that is to use the former as the title of the article, disambiguated if and only if necessary (and this is where more specialized guidelines are of great assistance), and to clearly specify the latter in bold in the opening sentence of the article. In those cases where there is no clear most commonly used name this is not an issue because there is no difference, and the more specialized guidelines can provide guidance if there is more than one to choose from.

  So, most bird names are probably fine as they are. Bluejay (rather than Cyanocitta cristata) is consistent with this. But yeah, that Metallica album should probably be moved.

  And even per m-w.com 1 2 gravitation and gravity are synonyms, and so we should just go with whichever is most commonly used among authoritative sources. What's "wrong" with that? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hesperian. Do we have to go through all this again? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because this will strip away the protection of years of considered debate and consensus determination at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Armenian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Burmese), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy), Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Naming Conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (manuscript names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian, Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Style guide and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties and lead to a quagmire of ambiguity and uncertainty. Melburnian (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Model 2, for all the reasons given. Support Model 1, an attractive alternative to Chaos.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose strengthening. I support model 2 above. There needs to be negotiation with specialist areas to ensure there is no ambiguity when common names are used. The two can complement each other rather well if this is taken into account. i.e some simple/common names are good as long as they are not ambiguous and also to have some conformity with other entities in a given area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I support the change that Aervanath is proposing as the current wording is confusing (as shown by some of the comments in this section). Most of the advise on the guidelines became redundant about a year ago when we added to this policy page that reliable sources should be used. Policy supersedes guideline advise. This is the naming conventions policy page, all the rest are guidelines to the naming conventions. So common names should be used unless there is another more detailed convention on this page that contradicts that. (I proposed about a year ago that this page be renamed so that there was less confusion over the difference between policy and the guidelines to the policy -- perhaps we should have another request). --PBS (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for reasons explained by Hesperian. • Rabo³ • 12:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Naming conventions exist for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion.   Will Beback  talk  16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Naming policy exists for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion. I don't think it's clear at all that what many of the specific naming guidelines say is said for good reasons. A lot of them appear to have been formed by small groups of biased specialists focused on their particular area, with little or no regard to the goal of naming consistency throughout Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm happy to see this resolved in a way that supports common sense. That means if there is a common name use it, don't use a scientific or obscure name when an English common name is available. Also, understand that since for many articles that share a common name, disambiguation is the first choice for the main name space when primary usage is not clearly established. What we have today is chaos! I have said over the years, that this policy is part of our style sheet and as such it should produce predictable results. As a side effect, it should reduce conflict and extended discussions of article names. It should also reduce editor confusion. My gut says that either model 1 or 2 could work. That means we may only need to tweak the current wording. I'm just not sure what that change is or how easy it would be to reach a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Common sense suggests that works best for operas is not what might work best for plants, and that the best common sense solution for Kosovo related articles many not work so well for companies. The limitations of a single top down solution is what has lead to the plethora of naming conventions listed by Melburnian. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• It is certainly true that what works well in one area might not work well in another area. However, as Wikipedians, we all follow certain fundamental policies; WP:Verifiablity, WP:Neutrality, etc. Those fundamental policies apply EVERYWHERE. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that there are OTHER common rules which can apply on a broad scope. In my view, COMMONNAME is one of them. I am not an expert in any of the various fields that have their own naming conventions, and our readers aren't either. That's the whole point. We should be optimizing this for the readers of our articles, not the specialists. While it is tempting to say that "opera editors know best about opera" and "plant editors know about plants", and therefore we should defer to them, that's the opposite to what we should be doing. We should be optimizing this for people who don't know anything about any subject, and are looking to learn. That means putting articles in the place where most people are likely to look.--Aervanath (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Exactly. Also, no one is advocating a single top down solution. Just some consistent principles that should apply consistently everywhere - nuances still have to be handled case-by-case. But naming should be consistent at some fundamental level. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Yes, I agree with that, but not at the expense of accuracy. Plants is a case in point where common names often very wildly, are multiple or nonexistent, same with most invertebrates and fish. Birds are virtually the only creatures with official common names. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think "plants is a case" is not correct. Plants is not a case - plants is a collection of countless cases, and for many, most or perhaps even the vast majority of those cases it may be true that "common names often vary wildly, are multiple or nonexistent". And for each one of those cases where that's true, then, as well as any time disambiguation is required, the plant-specific guideline should kick in, so to speak. But for all those cases where there is a clear single easily recognized most commonly used unambiguous name for the plant topic in question, then that should be the title. But thinking of "plants" (or any group of articles) as a whole being a separate case en masse is problematic from the outset. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• From Aervanath - We should be optimizing this for the readers of our articles, not the specialists. You know in these discussions I am sick to death of this kind of argument. It is not a case of elitist specialists lording it over the pondlife masses. That is not what it is about. It is a question about organisation. Naming conventions are essentially a question about where the article in question sits. We should be optimizing this for people who don't know anything about any subject, and are looking to learn. That means putting articles in the place where most people are likely to look. Bullshit. That is not what this is about. Example, the article on pigeons is currently sitting at Columbidae. This is not the name people are looking for, they are looking for pigeon. But they still find what they are looking for, which is an article on pigeons (and doves. The whole stupid reason we have the article at Columbidae is we had millions of screaming voices saying "pigeons aren't doves, we can't have the article on one or the other pages). What gets readers to where they want to be is not where the article sits ultimately but what redirects and dab pages point to it. If people want to find Joshua tree it doesn't matter where it sits as long as the dab page is clear or the redirect is there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• This assertion is only true to the extent that the reader is searching for the text instead of scanning through a category. Redirects are rarely categorized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Also, the situation with pigeon and dove is exactly the kind of case where my wording of COMMONNAME would put the article at Columbidae: there are two, approximately equally used, ambiguous names, so the title should default to the scientific name. I have no problem with that. However, in the hypothetical case that all species of Columbidae were universally known as pigeons, with no confusion, then I would argue that the article should be called pigeon. I have trouble with specific naming conventions that ignore a universally used common name in favor of the specialized name.--Aervanath (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have trouble with specific naming conventions that ignore a universally used common name in favor of the specialized name. Such as? In months and months of debate, I have yet to be given a single compelling example where the proposed rewording would correct an obvious title error. A few marginal, arguable examples are offered, like this Metallica (album) versus The black album (Metallica) issue, but that is it. Born2cycle, to his credit, tried to offer some compelling plant examples, but in every case offered, the scientific name was at least equal in usage in reliable third-party sources to the vernacular name that B2c had alleged was more commonly used, and in most cases the scientific name absolutely smashed the vernacular name. So where are these examples? Do you have any? Will this change actually have an impact, or is it pointless idealogy? Just one compelling example. Please. Hesperian 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled. Since the proposal won't change much if anything with areas like plants, why are you so opposed to it? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• How many times must I answer this question before you bother listening to the answer? The outcome will be the same. The process will change from clear guidelines easily followed, to months and months and months and months of hairsplitting googlewanking bullshit pointless arguments with tosspots who get off on that kind of thing. Have I made myself clear yet? Hesperian 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, quite. I even get it now. Disagree, but I get it. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I brought up pigeon not as an example of common names versus scientific ones but to refute the idea that a scientific article title precludes people being able to find the article they wanted. Two different points entirely, so please don't conflate them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• One great way to use Wikipedia is to scan categories. That method is useless if the names listed in the categories (article titles) are unfamiliar to the reader. Say a reader is home from a California vacation, and there was a tree she wants to look up, but can't quite remember the name (but probably will if she sees it again). If it's Joshua Tree, Torrey Pine, Monterey Cypress or just about any other tree in California, it will be impossible for her to find it in category of list of trees of California.

  The idea that a scientific article title precludes people being able to find the article they wanted has not been refuted. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• To the extent that this is a problem, the solution is to categorise redirects. Hesperian 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Easier said than done. How are you with herding cats? This brings up another problem with Model 1... nothing in the model allows for ensuring that the redirects from the most commonly used name are created in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• ... whereas Model 2 will create all the redirects, herd all the cats, and write a host of featured articles for us on its days off, right? Hesperian 05:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Precisely. While TV episode names were using Model 1, at least partially, there were all kinds of missing dab pages and links. That is, there might be a unique TV episode named "An extraordinary night", but the title would be predabbed with the TV series name as An extraordinary night (The Adventures of Hesperian), and there would be no dab page at the name of the episode itself, An extraordinary night, which would just be red. Or, that would exist as some other article with no hat note to the TV episode name, or it would be a dab page with no link to the episode article. Why? Because editors were simply creating the article at the name they thought it should be at, and really had no reason to check what if anything was going on with the basic name. I've seen the same kind of thing in other categories that predab, from U.S. cities to Russian subs. But once they switched to Model 2 all those got fixed. Now, per Model 2, each TV episode name is guaranteed to be occupied with either the article itself, or a dab page. When someone creates a new article under Model 2, the first thing they do is try to use the "most commmonly used name", so they are forced by the model to naturally discover if it needs dabbing. With Model 1, it's somebody else's problem. It's hard to quantify how big this problem is, but I seriously think it's pretty significant in any category that predabs. It is a significant difference between the two models, and as long as humans keep coming up with new topics to cover in Wikipedia, it will only get worse the more Model 1 is adopted. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, I understand this point now. This is why I have a user space subpage dedicated to identifying Western Australian places for which the "PLACENAME, Western Australia" article has been created but no-one bothered to redirect or disambiguation from the "PLACENAME" article. But whilst your argument holds for predisambiguated pages, there is no evidence or reason to believe that it holds in all cases; for example there is no evidence that it applies in the case of scientific name versus vernacular name. Hesperian 07:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• So in the context of the general Model 1 v. 2 debate, Model 2 gets the nod on this point, at least for all specific guidelines that predisambiguate contrary to WP:COMMONNAME under Model 1. Agreed?

• And for specific guidelines that choose in Model 1 scientific over most easily recognized (when applicable) under Model 1, we still have the categorization problem. For example, look at trees of California. For the non-specialist reader browsing through that category is useless, for the names are incomprehensible. He is going to have to click on each and every link to even get an idea of what it is about. Let's randomly take the first one on the list, Abies bracteata. It has two vernacular names listed, Bristlecone Fir and Santa Lucia Fir. Now, let's do a basic google test.

• Results 1 - 10 of about 3,330 for "Bristlecone fir"

  Results 1 - 10 of about 751 for "Santa Lucia Fir".

• No contest, agreed? So why not change the article name to Bristlecone fir (oh, looky there, it's red... evidence of the problem even for vernacular names after all), and make Abies bracteata a redirect to the article? This is what adopting Model 2 would accomplish, automatically (no need to herd cats to get it done), and the reader would see the familiar Bristlecone fir rather than the foreign Abies bracteata when browsing trees of California, and any other category in which that plant is listed. Now do this for every plant that is likely to be familiar to the general non-specialist reader, and you have a huge improvement in the encyclopedia. That's what this is about. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know why I continue to hold out hope that you might mount an honest argument at some point. Firstly, you've omitted

  Results 1 - 10 of about 9,300 for "Abies bracteata"

  Why did you do that? Surely you wouldn't have overlooked such an obvious search phrase. I think you deliberately omitted because the result forces you to concede that either (a) A. bracteata is the most commonly used name; or (b) your google hits method is useless. Either way, your argument is an epic fail. Your premise that the names are incomprehensible is repudiated by the very method you've adopted. And you knew it before you even hit the save button.

  Secondly, a single red link is not evidence; it is a datum. It seems to me that people visit and link to familiar titles more often than they visit and link to obscure titles; that's the whole point of all this COMMONNAMES stuff, isn't it? Doesn't that imply that redirects from common names are more likely to be created than redirects from obscure names? And doesn't that imply that people will be much quicker to create redirects from familiar titles to an obscure title, than they are to create redirects from obscure titles to a familiar title? And doesn't it follow that we can optimise future redirect creation by putting our articles at the most obscure titles available, thus maximising the familiarity of the titles from which redirects are required? Reductio ad absurdum. Hesperian 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I thought I made clear, I was using the google test only to decide between the two vernacular forms. The google test popularity of the scientific form over the vernacular forms is irrelevant to the point I was making, and it does not prove that English speaking non-specialist Wikipedia readers are more likely to be familiar with the scientific form than the vernacular forms. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is not at all irrelevant; the result of that query either refutes your premise that the scientific name is less recognisable than the vernacular names; or it refutes your premise that the google test is useful for assessing the relative recognisability of names. Either way, your argument is refuted.

  Thankyou for providing me with a diff in which you have explicitly stated that the google test is useless for determining the relative familiarity of scientific and vernacular names to non-specialist readers. I'll be sure to keep it to hand. Hesperian 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I said it was "irrelevant to the point I was making" in answer to your query about why I didn't check on the ghit count for the scientific name. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to anything else. If you would like to discuss whether it's relevant to some point you're trying to make, we can do that, but that's a different issue.

• The result of your query only refutes the premise that the scientific name is less recognizable than the vernacular names if you also accept the premise that the Google test is always a reliable tool for determining whether the scientific or vernacular name is more likely to be familiar. My argument is not dependent on that premise. Is yours?

• You say that if that premise is not refuted, then it refutes the premise that the google test is useful for assessing the relative recognisability of names. My argument is not dependent on that premise either.

• My argument is based only on the limited premise that the Google test is useful for assessing the relative familiarity or recognizability of vernacular names. Since your query is outside of the scope of this premise, it is irrelevant to the point I was making. Which is why I said that in the first place.

  So, with all irrelevant tangents aside, I ask again, why not change the article name to Bristlecone fir, and make Abies bracteata a redirect to the article? Or is it your position that the typical English speaking WP reader/user is likely to find the scientific name to be more familiar and/or recognizable than either of the vernacular names? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I read it, your argument rests in part upon the premise that "for the non-specialist reader... the [scientific] names are incomprehensible"; and on the unstated premise that the corresponding vernacular names are not so. Not only did you start your argument with this premise, but you subsequently invoke it in the assertion that "the reader would see the familiar Bristlecone fir rather than the foreign Abies bracteata." A refutation of a premise upon which your argument rests is not an "irrelevant tangent"; it is the demolition of your argument. Your most cherished belief doesn't become irrefutable fact just because you don't like it to be challenged. So tell me, does the result of my Google test refute your premise? If not, why not? Hesperian 03:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• You've avoided answering my question twice now...

  First, yes, my argument here does rest in part on the premise that scientific names are significantly less likely to be comprehended than are the corresponding English vernacular names. Most WPians who are not even familiar with the plant are probably more likely to infer that Bristlecone fir is a type of fir tree than they are likely to infer that from Abies bracteata (which to me, for example, if I didn't just learn what it was, it could just as likely be a weed, a type of frog, some kind of bacteria, or perhaps even be Latin for something like "over the shoulder boulder holder").

  Second, I agree of course that a refutation of this premise would not be an irrelevant tangent.

  Your Google test does not refute my premise because ghits and "likely to be comprehended" are not necessarily directly correlated. Are you prepared to argue that they are directly correlated? I didn't think so. So I assume we don't have to go down that path (why debate/dispute something we both already agree on?). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  Now, for the third time, why not change the article name to Bristlecone fir, and make Abies bracteata a redirect to the article? Or is it your position that the typical English speaking WP reader/user is likely to find the scientific name to be more familiar and/or recognizable than either of the vernacular names? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your question is a request that I restate all of the myriad arguments that I have put forward in support of the present flora convention, and all of the myriad arguments that I have put forward in refutation of your arguments. In short, you're asking me to go back six months and start this interminable discussion all over again. I quite understand that you would like nothing more than to argue over naming conventions forevermore, but I have better things to do. In answer to your question, I direct you to the megabytes of discussion at WT:NC (flora). You certainly cannot deny that I have already answered this question at length numerous times therein. Hesperian 05:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, in retrospect, that's probably fair about the first question, but not at all about the second, which I would think you should be able to answer with either one of two particular words. I think we have just enough room for that.  ;-). Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• It depends on how familiar and recognisable are defined.
  1. I recognise Bristlecone Fir as a term I've heard before, but I have no idea what it means."
  2. "I don't know what Bristlecone Fir means but I assume it means some kind of fir tree."
  3. "I know exactly what Bristlecone Fir means.

  Case 1 is of no interest. I grant that Case 2 favours Bristlecone Fir over Abies bracteata, since, for most people, it is easier to extract context from "cone" and "fir" than it is to extract context from "Abies" and "bract". I assert that Case 3 favours Abies bracteata over Bristlecone Fir; i.e. the precise scope of the article is more easily infered from Abies bracteata than from Bristlecone Fir.

  Now before you start trying to negotiate with me over how familiar and recognisable should be defined, permit me to remind you that this is completely irrelevant, because WP:COMMONNAMES doesn't enjoin us to choose names with these properties; it tells us to choose the most commonly used name (according to usage in reliable sources). User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a textbook or guide book. We do not set up any of our bird or plant or fungus articles as identification keys. Unless you actually have some idea what you are after we can't help. Sorry. I suggest your reader goes onto Google and tries there. Once they know what tree they are after they can come here, type in either the scientific or common name, and then get the article they want. Or hell, check out the article California native plants, which is probably a much easier way of finding out what they are after. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Using article titles that are likely to be recognized by non-specialists in order to make Wikipedia categories useful for readers to find articles does not turn Wikipedia into a guide book or a text book. WP categories are uniquely useful for this purpose - it is not something that google searches offer. If categories are to be filled with generally unrecognizable names, why have categories? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I like "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article..." I note however that this dispute concerns the article page name, not the article title. Once we settle this, the guideline should be revised to make this important distinction clearer. --Una Smith (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • While it seems clear that this proposal is not going to succeed, I'm curious as to how you would define the difference between the article page name and the article title. My impression has always been that "moving a page" and "retitling an article" were complete synonyms here, if only because of the technical details of the MediaWiki software.--Aervanath (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) I'm almost certain there there is no way to make a title different from its page name. So I've always used and interpreted the terms completely interchangeably. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Okay, here's what I mean. The page named Breeching is a dab. Entries on it include two articles about breeching, on pages named Breeching (boys) and Breeching (tack). The dab and the two articles all have different page names but share the title Breeching. An article has only one page name, but it can have multiple titles. Page names cannot be shared but titles can be shared and often are. Consider how we use pipes to display a title when it differs from the page name: [[Breeching (tack)|Breeching]]. --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh! Yes, I agree the guideline could be improved in terms of making the distinction clearer between the topic name part and the disambiguation part of dabbed titles. But I still think the whole thing could be referred to as either the title, or the page name, and they are always one and the same. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Hesperian, Melburnian, and countless others who have opposed past attempts to emasculate WikiProjects who have put a great deal of expertise, experience, and thought into their project naming conventions. We should continue to trust the boots on the ground and the time proven policy of giving power to the people who are doing the actual work on this project. First Light (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that golf specialists, for example, are not necessarily Wikipedia article naming specialists. Many of the members of these projects are likely to know very little if anything about WP:NC or why it exists. They are likely to have never thought at all about the problem of making article naming across Wikipedia consistent and how to solve it. Specializing in the naming issues of a particular area does not make one an expert on how best to name topics in Wikipedia in general, or even how best to title WP articles within that area of expertise (though often such specific naming expertise is very helpful, especially when disambiguation is required). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that a project has thought enough about naming to create set of naming conventions suggests that they must be tangentially aware that generalised naming conventions exist (otherwise how could they add some subject specific supplements?). Moreover if a project isn't aware of these conventions and goes around naming things willy-nilly it doesn't matter what we change here, because they won't be aware of it. Besides, there is no danger of projects being unaware of the conventions, as well meaning editors can be relied upon to point it out, at length and as often as is needed, should they dare venture from said conventions. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

@B2c - sorry, general article naming specialists? Who would they be then? If they are not aware of the specific accuracy of a given name in a topic they are unfamiliar with how can they possibly advise of the correct name without input from specialised topic guidelines or specialists? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently B2c thinks that golf specialists are not necessarily Wikipedia article naming specialists... but Wikipedia article naming specialists are necessarily gold specialists, bird specialists, plant specialists, ship specialists, royalty specialists, place name specialists, mammal specialists, history specialists, physics specialists, music specialists.... Hesperian 05:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that being a non-specialist in a given area probably means you have a better sense of what names are likely to be familiar to other non-specialists (i.e. typical readers of WP) than are specialists in that area. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As a non-expert in any number of things, ranging from 17th century naval law to country music to Greco-Roman architecture to the minor works or Virgil to chemistry to the career of Engelbert Humperdick to Art Nouveau ceramics to the diplomatic relations of Caribbean island states, I can assure you that I'd trust the judgements of people who know something about them over mine any day of the week. Including how best to make them accessible to ignoramuses like me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Hesperian and many others. Let's keep it flexible without more heavy-handed bureaucratic mandation. Maias (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. User:First Light sums up my arguments well.-gadfium 03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the change as suggested, you wouldnt seek legal advice from some punk on a street corner you'd see a lawyer why should we have a policy thats says the street corner punk is the one who should be deciding the name. Gnangarra 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, anyone feel like archiving this as, erm, not going to pass? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.