Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English-language sources): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:17, 3 March 2025

Latest revision as of 15:33, 17 June 2025

(15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 17:

{{center|[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (anglicization)|Anglicization]]}}

}}

== Russian names ==

I find it unacceptable that we're using different ways of romanizing Russian, depending on what's the most common name in English-language reputable sources. We should choose one romanization and stick to it on the entirety of Wikipedia. [[Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky]] was a Russian, and in Russian you currently spell the name Пётр Ильич Чайковский. That's Cyrillic last time I checked, an alphabet that isn't used for writing English. Any romanization is a means to an end, a way of representing Пётр Ильич Чайковский, so who cares how it's spelled? On Dutch Wikipedia, he's called ''Pjotr Iljitsj Tsjaikovski'', and I'm pretty sure that they're using the same romanization everywhere.

According to [[Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian]], we should spell his name ''Pyotr Ilyich Chaykovsky'' (Ilyich with a ''y'', right? It's sounded as a consonant after all), without the useless ''t'' at the beginning of the surname, and with ''i'' representing only the [[close front unrounded vowel]] (or the [[close central unrounded vowel]], when immediately following the hard {{IPA|/r/}}), rather than both that and a postvocalic [[palatal approximant]].

English spelling is a pile of illogical and unnecessary rules and we don't have to add to it by using fifty different romanizations just because they're the most common spelling in the English literature. In Russia certainly, people stick to one romanization in any given context (an encyclopedia is "one context", no?) and I don't think that they have any emotional reaction to their name being transliterated differently. English readers, on the other hand, might react to ''Chaykovsky'' with "oh my god, you can't spell!", which is not only not true (the surname is spelled Чайковский in Russian, in a different alphabet altogether) but not our problem anyway. We should treat our readers as adults, not as children who need to be catered to to that extent. People accusing others of not being able to spell should know that this isn't an English word and that there are multiple ways of transcribing Russian names. Plus, [[Chaykovsky, Perm Krai]] is spelled "Chaykovsky" and the discrepancy is ''infuriating'' to me. It's the same word! Not only that, the town was named after Tchaikovsky himself! Argh! This is so stupid.

I'm not advocating for using any particular romanization (though [[WP:RUS]] is more than fine in my opinion) but for consistency, also in the case of other languages that aren't written in the Latin alphabet. The current situation is ridiculous, especially given the fact how easy it is to create a redirect.

So, long story short, let's use one type of romanization of Russian on Wikipedia, create redirects for those names that are at odds with the romanization of our choice (whatever it'll end up to be) and mention those names in the lede. The English Wikipedia is, AFAICS, alone (at least among major Wikipedias) in how it deals with Russian names and it's time to stop this practice.

If a name of a certain scientific phenomenon was mostly spelled in British English (because of who's written the papers describing it), would we be forced to use the British spelling of the name despite everything? That's the level of unreasonableness we're dealing with here. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 15:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

: For names which have an established translation / transliteration into English, IMHO we should use that, regardless of what some systematic transliteration of Russian would give. For instance, when talking about [[Moscow|the capital of Russia]], we should name it ''Moscow'', not ''Moskva''. Similarly ''[[Saint-Petersburg]]'', not ''Sankt-Peterburg''. The same applies to people's names: ''[[Ivan the Terrible]]'', not ''Ivan Groznyy''; ''[[Peter the Great]]'', not ''Pyotr Velikiy'' or ''Pyotr Pyervyy''.

: Under [[Tchaikovsky (disambiguation)]] that surname is written mostly ''Tchaikovsky'' but also ''Chaikovskij'', ''Tschaikowsky'' and ''Chaykovsky''; under [[Tchaikovsky (surname)]] there are more spellings, but also the following paragraphs at top explaining how they came about:

<blockquote>

'''Tchaikovsky''' and its feminine variant '''Tchaikovskaya''' is a common transliteration (via French language) of the Russian language surname Чайковский. The surname itself is a Russian-language variant of the Polish surname [[Czajkowski (surname)|Czajkowski]], see this page for name origin.

Transliterated spellings in various languages include ''Tschaikowski'' ([[German language|German]]), ''Ciajkovskij'' ([[Italian language|Italian]]), ''Tsjaikovski'' ([[Dutch language|Dutch]]), ''Csajkovszkij'' ([[Hungarian language|Hungarian]]), ''Chaikovski'' ([[Spanish language|Spanish]]), ''Tjajkovskij'' ([[Swedish language|Swedish]]), ''Tsjajkovskij'' ([[Norwegian language|Norwegian]]), ''Čaikovskis'' ([[Latvian language|Latvian]] and [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]]), ''Tchaikovski'' ([[Portuguese language|Portuguese]]), ''Txaikovski'' ([[Catalan language|Catalan]]) and ''Tšaikovski'' ([[Estonian language|Estonian]] and [[Finnish language|Finnish]]).

It has also been rendered as ''Tchaikovski'', ''Chaikovsky'', ''Chaykovsky'', ''Chaikovskiy'', ''Chaykovskiy'', and ''Chaikovskii''. Among [[Slavic languages]] which use the [[Latin alphabet]], it frequently occurs in its [[Polish language|Polish]] version, ''Czajkowski'', or as ''Čajkovskij'' ([[Czech language|Czech]] and [[Slovak language|Slovak]]) and ''Čajkovski'' ([[Slovenian language|Slovenian]], [[Croatian language|Croatian]], [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]]).

The surname as transliterated into other languages may refer to the following persons. For the original, Polish spelling, see [[Czajkowski (surname)]].

</blockquote>

: The composer is probably known in English-speaking media with a certain spelling, which we should respect; the town in the Perm region probably isn't, even if it was named to honour the composer, so we can, and IMHO we should, transliterate its name directly from Cyrillic. — [[User:Tonymec|Tonymec]] ([[User talk:Tonymec|talk]]) 22:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

::I agree with @[[User:Tonymec|Tonymec]]. It may be maddening to people who speak Russian, but English's spelling has always been horribly inconsistent, and it's better to follow the sources, which means following the consistent uses in the sources. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

:::I see there are many opinions about the representation of names written in the cyrillic alphabet. And it looks that many talk of [[Transliteration]] and mean [[Transcription (linguistics)]]. Transliteration is an international way to converse names written in cyrillic into latin regardless of the pronouncation in a certain language (I think mainly based on the Czech alphabet). So '''Ч''' is written ''ch'' in Englisch and ''tsch'' in German, ''cs'' in Hungarian and ''Č'' in Czech (see town [[Chop, Ukraine]]. But if you use the transliteration it is ''Č'' in all languages that use the Latin alphabet. This remark is just to make clear what is talked about (or not).--[[User:Wanfried-Dublin|Wanfried-Dublin]] ([[User talk:Wanfried-Dublin|talk]]) 09:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

:::: If I understand what [[User:Wanfried-Dublin|Wanfried-Dublin]] wrote above, when talking about the composer whose native name was Пётр Ильич Чайковский, and limiting ourselves to his family name, ''Ćajkovskij'' (with a capital c-caron initial) would be a transliteration, ''Chaykovski'' would be a transcription, and ''Tchaikovsky'' would be — what? A translation, maybe. So let's rephrase what I said earlier: IMHO, when there is an accepted translation (e.g. ''Moscow'' and not ''Moskva'' for Москва, ''Khrushchev'' and not ''Khrusshoff'' for Хрущёв, etc.), we should use it; if there is no accepted translation, I believe that for Wikpedia a consistent transcription would be appropriate, while in some other documents (maybe a linguists' technical review) a transliteration using some agreed-in-advance lossless convention would be better. For Чайковский (the composer) there is an accepted transltion, ''viz.'' "Tchaikovsky", so let's use that; for Чайковский (the town in the Perm region) there is no accepted translation into English, so we fall back on transcription. I'm not sure exactly how Wikipedia transcribes Russian names from Cyrillic, but I suppose that "Chaykovski, Perm rayon" would not be too far of the mark. The fact that we write differently a person's name and the name of a town which was intentionally given (in Russian) the name of that particular person, is just a quirk of the English language. The Japanese customs about how to pronounce Chinese proper names (and common nouns) based on their hanzi orthography is even more quirky. — [[User:Tonymec|Tonymec]] ([[User talk:Tonymec|talk]]) 11:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

:::::It seems there is some confusion what is meant. Moscow is neither transliteration nor transcription but an [[Exonym]]. As to ''Tchaikovsky'': at least for the national post and railway it was once agreed, to use the French transcription (I am not sure, but I think for other names too). And Tchaikovsky would be the French version.--[[User:Wanfried-Dublin|Wanfried-Dublin]] ([[User talk:Wanfried-Dublin|talk]]) 11:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

:::::: I didn't say ''Moscow'' was either a transcription or a transliteration, I said it was a translation, like German ''Moskau'' and French ''Moscou''; similarly, Chinese 中國 (usually transliterated ''zhōngguǒ'' nowadays) and Japanese 中國 (usually transcribed ''chōgoku'') are translated as English ''China'', French ''la Chine'', Russian ''Китай'', and these latter three, which are indeed exonyms, are the translations of that sinogram pair into their respective languages.

:::::: This said, if for place names we must use the French transcripton because French is the international language of the post offices, then there is an established spelling for the Perm-region town, and it is ''Tchaikovsky''. — [[User:Tonymec|Tonymec]] ([[User talk:Tonymec|talk]]) 11:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

::::::: To add some more remarks: I write mainly for the German Wikipedia and there are some rules regarding first exonyms and second how to use the transcription. These rules are generally obeyed so there is less confusion. The main aim is that a reader who has no knowledge of any other language is able to spell the transcribed name as he reads it and that others can understand it (I agree that this is easier in German than in English). 2. as to French: using this as a rule is fine but I doubt it is workable or will ever be obeyed (who is ''Poutine'')? As far as I remember when the Soviet Union ceased to exists all the ''new'' states (Russia, Ukraine, ...) that use the cyrillic spelling agreed to transcribe the names into the French version. This might have been well intented but was never done as English is the language that is most used and understood. From my journeys into Ukraine I know only one example where French is used (railway station in Chop (Tchop)). Whenever a name is shown in the Latin version, it is always the English transcription that is used. Regards.--[[User:Wanfried-Dublin|Wanfried-Dublin]] ([[User talk:Wanfried-Dublin|talk]]) 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

== women's football clubs ==

There are many articles about non-english women's football clubs named ''xxx (women)'' [[:Category:Women's football clubs in Sweden|see here]]. There also many that instead use the native word for women [[:Category:Women's football clubs in Spain|see here]]. Clubs also have had their names switched back and forth. Per [[WP:TITLECON]] I propose a renaming of all women's football clubs (and categories!) that have the native word for women in the article name but not the club name. [[User:Dutchy45|Dutchy45]] ([[User talk:Dutchy45|talk]]) 16:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

== Native names ==

I am wondering if there is any established convention as to whether saints’ native names or anglicised versions should be used, both as the title and within the article. I understand that the name with established use in English language sources should be used, but in such areas where a saint has little English-language coverage, what is the protocol. For example, I recently created the page for the Italian Saint [[John of Tufara]], having translated the name. However, as very few English-language sources reference him and almost every source is in Italian, is it better to use his native name of Giovanni. If so, should this be Giovanni of Tufara or Giovanni da Tufara? Clarification would be very greatly appreciated! Many thanks, [[User:Vesuvio14|Vesuvio14]] ([[User talk:Vesuvio14|talk]]) 21:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

:Yes, this is quite difficult whenever we are forced to invent an English name for an article which has none in reliable sources. As a rule of thumb, I think it is better to translate when many of the following criteria apply: 1) a decent amount of meaning can be inferred from the individual words; 2) it is easy to translate the original title literally; 3) the translation sounds like a plausible thing to say in English; 4) the original name is difficult to pronounce or spell for English speakers; 5) if applicable, similar subjects are almost uniformly translated. And it is better to keep the original name when the reverse is true. For [[Pseudo-Chinese]], I have decided to translate the title, because the translation gives the reader some sense of what the title is about and is easier to say. Another factor in this case was having to choose one Romanization system over the other if going with the original title, since original Chinese-character names are not allowed in English Wikipedia articles. Now there are more sources calling it "pseudo-Chinese" in English, but I suspect this may be [[citogenesis]]. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 00:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

== Clarifying definition of English name? ==

In quite a few move requests where the proposal is to move to a name with non-English origins, I've noticed people citing this policy (or [[WP:UE]]) as justification to oppose the move, even if the proposed name is demonstrably the most common used in English sources. As I understand it, this guideline talks simply about which name English sources use, and has no prejudice on the origins of said name - hence using [[Uluru]] over Ayers Rock, or [[Denali]] over Mount McKinley. I'm wondering whether it would be worth having something within the guideline to spell this out, as it seems the current wording has been misconstrued reasonably often? [[User:Turnagra|Turnagra]] ([[User talk:Turnagra|talk]]) 20:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:Turnagra|Turnagra]], fully agree seen it used as an argument to argue to use only English names, regardless if a non-English name is more common. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 21:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

:This should be retitled to better reflect its content. “Use English sources”, maybe. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 1 December 2024 ==

Line 98 ⟶ 41:

I think the wording might be backwards. The string "ae and oe" contains 7 graphemes, not 5, whereas "œ and æ" contains 5. It also seems to contradict [[MOS:CONFORM]] which says "Normalize archaic glyphs and ligatures in English ... æ→ae, œ→oe". [[Special:Contributions/216.58.25.209|216.58.25.209]] ([[User talk:216.58.25.209|talk]]) 02:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:A grapheme is a basic functional unit of writing. There is actually some disagreement among scholars of grapholinguistics over where to draw the line, but suffice it to say I understand the plurality position is represented here. That is to say, the [[glyph]]s {{gph|æ}} and {{gph|ae}} can both represent the grapheme {{gpm|æ}} in situations where distinct from the digraph {{gpm|a}} followed by {{gpm|e}}. {{gph|æ}} is simply the combined ligature form that is often preferred for clarity, but the digraph still functions as the grapheme {{gpm|æ}}. As {{gpm|æ}} is not "its own letter" in Modern English, this usually isn't the case. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think the two passages should be rearticulated for clarity, but I understand it as saying that should normalize <em>typographic</em> ligatures, but not ones that represent graphemic distinctions in the writing system used. Meaning, {{gpm|æ}} was its own letter in the [[Old English Latin alphabet]], so it should not be normalized. However, {{gph|æ}} is not its own letter in the Modern English word ''encyclopædia'', so it should be normalized. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, so the distinction is with "archaic glyphs" vs "Old English". I'll edit to emphasize this difference. [[Special:Contributions/216.58.25.209|216.58.25.209]] ([[User talk:216.58.25.209|talk]]) 03:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::We both seem to agree that <æ> is a grapheme.

::My idea of "glyph" is that one [https://helpx.adobe.com/incopy/using/glyphs-special-characters.html glyph] means one slot in a font file. In this [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-variant-ligatures font-variant-ligatures: normal] example, |fi| (1683<!--Open FiraSans-Regular.ttf

:: in FontForge-->) and |fl| (1684) are glyphs (on that page, not here), but with no-common-ligatures, I see |f| (71) + |i| (74) and |f| + |l| (77). These two coincidentally have Unicode codepoints, but "<|" in JetBrains Mono is a glyph that doesn't. In the above comment, I understand the glyph |æ|, but |ae| confuses me because it appears to be 2 separate glyphs.

::But this talk page is for [[WP:NCUE]], which doesn't use "glyph". Here "grapheme" is used. The relevant [[grapheme cluster]] concept is basically the smallest mouse-selectable thing. Each grapheme cluster contains at least one grapheme. Since I can select the "a" and "e" of "ae" individually, there must be 2 grapheme clusters so at least 2 graphemes. Therefore, "ae" is not an individual grapheme, while "æ" is.

::This is why "{{tq|graphemes such as ae and oe. By and large, Wikipedia uses œ and æ to represent the Old Norse}}" sounds wrong. It should be something like "graphemes such as <ins>the ligatures for</ins> ae and oe" or "graphemes such as æ and œ <ins>(modern oe and ae)</ins>". [[Special:Contributions/216.58.25.209|216.58.25.209]] ([[User talk:216.58.25.209|talk]]) 03:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

== Reconsider this entire convention ==

This naming convention is just an excuse to be wrong about an article's name. Just because "reliable sources" type a name wrong doesn't mean it's the right name. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' ^{([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])} 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't meant to be glib, it's the crux of the entire issue: what makes one form wrong and another right? How are we meant to have a process as non-experts that doesn't defer to our sources? Moreover, what is the justification for generally deferment to our sources for everything other than orthography?

:If your argument is we should examine the entire body of RS, not just English-language RS—some pretty unhelpful conclusions arise almost immediately. Orthography is the ___domain where the argument to discriminate by language can be made, as that's the sole matter on which different language sources can never be made commensurate, by definition. Not to be melodramatic, but this would seem to jeopardize the notion of orthography in general. That seems vital to getting anything done around here ever. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::How about we consider sources in a subject's native language instead of blindly following English-language sources? That would be a good start. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' ^{([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])} 00:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I disagree. English is English is English. The common usage in English is what the average English reader is going to expect, whether it is "right" or "wrong" in the native language. To see ''Deutschland'' for Germany would be just wrong. [[User:Masterhatch|Masterhatch]] ([[User talk:Masterhatch|talk]]) 00:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

== MOS needs to be applied to this page ==

In the section [[WP:DIACRITICS]], the first two paragraphs contain two different spellings of the word "Encyclopedia". I'll let the people who are actively participating in the MOS wars sort it out, but someone ought to deal with the inconsistency within the guideline. '''[[User:Horologium|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray">Horologium</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 14:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)