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

Revision as of 00:19, 1 April 2025

Latest revision as of 15:33, 17 June 2025

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 17:

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

}}

== 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 70 ⟶ 58:

: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)