Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 5

Links w/in Wikipedia Name-space

international:

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (anglicization)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chinese)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (japanese)

people:

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (monarchs)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people with the same name)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (pseudonyms)

science, maths, technical

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (biology)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (file formats)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (theorems)

Continents

Not sure if this has already been discussed, or if it's off-topic here. Is it Wikipedia policy to consider Middle East a continent distinct from Asia? Also, is it common to club Egypt with the Middle Eastern countries, perhaps because Egypt is Arab? Ambarish 23:39, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm unaware of a Wikipedia "policy" considering the Middle East a continent. However, it is common practice in English to refer to the "Middle East" as a geographical region. I think most people would include Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (among others) in that region. Like most regions, it has fuzzy boundaries. I don't think Arab ethnicity is a requirement (e.g., Israel, the Kurdish regions). Different topic: Europe and Asia are connected, and can be referred to collectively as Euroasia. However, they are often treated as though they were separate; blame the Greeks. -- Dwheeler

Case citations

Is there any uniform method for referring to case names in law? Or should we just follow good judgement and local citation rules? Bbtommy 18:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vote: spaces after periods between initials?

The leading style guides in American and International English usage (The Chicago Manual of Style edition 15 paragraphs 8.6 and 15.12, The Oxford Style Manual 3.2, and The Random House Handbook) dictate that initials in people's names, or companies named after them, should be written with spaces after the periods and a space between the initials and the name, e.g. W. E. B. Du Bois. Other, such as Associated Press Stylebook (a style book meant for newspapers where space is at a premium) and The Eonomist Style Guide, dictate against putting spaces between the initials, with a space only between the initials and the name, e.g. W.E.B. Du Bois. At the moment, both styles are prevalent in Wikipedia with frequent use of redirects.

Please vote on this issue:

With spaces

Nunh-huh
Bbtommy
Ruhrjung (We are discussing the titles of the articles, right? I think the default ought to be full names instead of initials.)
User:Dwheeler
Tkinias
Musashiwashi (I fully agree with Ruhrjung)
Oliver P. (re full names: we should use whatever form of a name is most common in the real world)
Paul Pogonyshev (nbsp's could be put automaticaly by software backend)
Ebear422 I think the rhythm is wrong without spaces. I can do without the dots.
LarryGilbert (C. S. Lewis was Clive Staples Lewis, not CliveStaples Lewis!)
Herbee because it's the logical thing to do.
80.255 19:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is the only correct way. It should ideally be the policy; however, in the absence of its being the policy, there should be no policy on the matter, for any policy against spaces would necessarily be blatantly incorrect.
Fred 18:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC) FWIW, with spaces is the standard at Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreading. I think it looks better and makes more sense than the alternative.
The Anome 17:04, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) (but please note that the appearance can be altered by post-processing: perhaps this should be an option, like the display of dates).

Without spaces

Viajero
Taku - in encyclopedia, more compact is better.
Wiki is not paper - Ec

But the size of the display is limited.
Elf - I'm a Chicago devotee, myself, but in this case I prefer no spaces
Stan Shebs - just seems more "natural"
SimonP - looks much better
Hajor - with all necessary redirects, of course.
DavidWBrooks - makes breaks at end of line less likely (e.g., A. / A. Milne)
Use "nbsp" where you think that matters - Ec
No, please don't. Markup like nbsp is very confusing to new editors with no prior knowledge of HTML. Angela
Wik
Morven - looks better to me.
Tannin
Angela - seems to be the most common way of doing it
Emsworth
Sam Spade
Ryan_Cable
Jmabel
J-V Heiskanen - very slight preference, best to have one though.
Piglet - more flowing and clearer in my opinion
Rich0 - looks nicer and is more concise
ugen64 00:36, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC) - isn't this the most common way?
Alcarillo 18:09 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) - I raised this on the J.R.R. Tolkien page; it's simply not modern usage, and using the spaces looks ridiculous, even when not using monospace type. Moreover, this is an online resource, not a book, so following (outdated) style guides for print isn't correct.
older ≠ wiser 17:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) Looks better to me

No-vote comments

Jerzy : ~~Vote here should be only re article titles; in fact,~~ i lean twd no spaces in article titles (which are already widened on the page by enlarged font), and probably in lists (which profit from compactness), but spaces in running text (aiding a reader in having info in the back of their mind, on the occasions when they pause to write a name carefully, what the logical and formal standard is). That would mean piping running-text links to such names; that may be tolerable, since the names in question are not that common.
Anthony DiPierro Why not whatever is more popular on a case by case basis?
Nunh-huh : on what basis is it asserted that "Modern typographical practice in book and newspaper publishing leans towards the latter" when book publishing and newpaper publishing clearly differs on this particular question of style? Way to skew the vote!
- It is asserted on the basis of observation. Contemporary books and newspapers have dropped the spaces, and as far as I can tell, have been doing so since ~1960s. It appears to be a case that the style guides no longer reflect the reality -- or that they guidelines are tailored for other purposes, such as scholarly manuscripts. Look around you, can you find a book or magazine with initials formatted with spaces??? -- Viajero 09:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - Yes, actual books have retained the spaces, as is indicated by the style guides for books (as opposed to those for magazines and newspapers). The style guides certainly reflect current good practice, and the latest version of CMS is no more than a year old: it hasn't missed any 40 year old trends. Wikipedia shouldn't be rewriting style guides (especially on the basis of "it looks better" (which is a typesetting issue), or adopting styles proper to newpapers and magazines but not to books. Unless it aspires to be a newspaper, I suppose. -- Nunh-huh 10:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
☮ Eclecticology Hmmm! It's an abuse of the voting process to attempt to impose the Tyranny of the Majority. I'll continue to use spaces according to the Style Manuals rather than a phoney vote.
Jia ng: Should be whichever is more popular on a case-by-case basis.
ShaneKing : I'd actually support no spaces and no periods either. I think that style looks as least as good as any other and is the easiest to type and find when using the search box. Although I admit it may offend some grammatical purists.
- (I agree with this also. Tannin)
- Agreed, for more than one initial. Jeandré
Andre Engels: I prefer no space, but am not going to vote, because my opinion is too much influenced by the fact that my mother tongue is Dutch, where the spaces are much more commonly not-given than in English and other languages.
Modern UK usage is no dots. I understand that current US usage is dots. This is just a comment not a vote. Secretlondon 18:15, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I've just picked several British books of my shelves at random, and all of them used dots... -- Oliver P. 04:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't know about English, but in Russian space is mandatory after any abbreviated word (i.e. dot and space; "i.e." in Russian would be "i. e."). <rant> Unfortunately, most people don't follow this rule nowadays. Sad to see how typographical rules are pushed away by computer users. Dashes tend to disappear too being replaced by ugly hyphens. </rant> -- Paul Pogonyshev 23:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From my talk page

You removed the phrase

Modern typographical practice in book and newspaper publishing leans towards the latter.

from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions declaring it "unsubstantiated". I don't know where you live but where I live I don't see any books or newspapers using the periods-with-spaces style. As far as I can tell, it went out of fashion in the ~1960s. Fine, you can adhere to the in this case outmoded prescript of the style guides, but that is called pedantry. Also, I would be reluctant to submit every issue on wikipedia to a vote, but it seems that for essentially aesthetical issues, which is what this is, it is not at all inappropriate. -- Viajero 09:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I moved it here because I'm not pursuing a private conversation on this matter. "Unsubstantiated" simply means that no facts were offered in evidence. So I looked at three books which I acquired in the past week, all first published in 2003: Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival published by Henry Hold; Poundstone, How Would You Move Mount Fuji? published by Little, Brown; Cahill, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea published by Doubleday. These are all major publishers. I also looked at the December 2003 issue of Scientific American. All used spaces between the initials. The previously cited C.M.S. and O.S.M. (note that I do not use spaces here because the initials are standing alone) were both published in 2003. That's out of date?

Contrary to the intended tone in its use, I do not find the use of the word "pedantry" to be wholly negative, although it may perhaps have been misapplied in the present circumstances. According to Fowler, "Pedantry may be defined ... as the saying of things in language so learned and demonstratively accurate as to imply a slur upon the generality, who are not capable or not desirous of such display. The term, then, is obviously a relative one; my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education, and someone else's ignorance. It is therefore not very profitable to dogmatize here on the subject; an essay would establish not what pedantry is, but only the place in the scale occupied by the author, and that, so far as it is worth inquiring into, can be better ascertained from the treatment of details... There are certainly many accuracies that are not pedantries, as well as some that are; thare are certainly many pedantries that are not accuracies, as well as some that are; and no book that attempts ... to give hundreds of decisions on the matter will find many readers who will accept them all."

Given the evidence, a vote purposed by one person's aesthetic cravings is completely inappropriate. ☮ Eclecticology 11:20, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic :-), it isn't one person's aesthetics since there are official style guides that recommend omitting spaces too. This looks more like one of those situations where publications have to decide on a "house style"; while we generally follow Chicago, in the past people have argued strenuously that some of its recommendations are wrong, for instance on points of capitalization and date format. In the print world, one would have an editor-in-chief to hand down our reality from on high :-), but in the absence of one, discussion and voting is the next-best.

Just to trot out a couple standard aspects that I haven't seen mentioned here yet - is this an English dialect (American/British/Australian/etc) dependency, and would one or the other form make it easier to process automagically? For instance, could thin spaces be inserted as part of creating the HTML page, and which form would make it easier for software to detect and change reliably? Stan 14:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I love your idea, Stan. I think this is rather software issue like whether to have an empty line after headings. A nice thing about wikipedia is that it is a software that produces a nice format. Writers should not be too bothered with formats and conventions. Software solution is usually the best. The heated date format discussion we had in the past is an good instance of this. In short, I bet the results of this policy would become obsolete in the future with the advent of the brilliant parser that automatically generates aritcles compliant to any standard setting. -- Taku 19:33, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that it's an American vs. British issue. Chicago is American, and Oxford is British, which is why I made a point of citing both. (I would have been much less enthusiastic about this issue if these two had disagreed.) I don't know about the Australians. I couldn't find a specific rule in the Canadian Globe and Mail Style Book, which is primarily for newspapers. Where relevant names are cited in the text it uses spaces; one notable exception there was the use of the name "J.A. (Sandy) McFarlane", one of the authors, on the title page of the book. The Associated Press Style Book is one that prefers no spaces, but it does give reasons which are similar to those raised by David W. Brooks above.

I am not well enough versed in the technical operations to comment on the automagical aspects, but I suspect that the "thin space" compromise could lead to the same kind of difficulties that were mentioned by Angela about "nbsp".

I know that no one is in a position to promulgate edicts from on high, presuming that such an issue would not be of momentous importance to Jimbo. I do agree that a discussion of the matter is healthy, but I find voting on such issues and treating the results of such a vote as a binding rule to be an evil aberration. There are clear differences about what is more "natural" or "aesthetically pleasing", both of which are subjective matters, and using a vote to impose either view is unduly restrictive.

Like Ruhrjung I would prefer full names in titles, but I've already been through that fight over David Wark Griffith. Without getting into details the date format and capitalization issues should also remain open. Taking positions that differ significantly from the major style guides should only be done with extreme caution, and should be supported by at least some measure of scholarship.

The point has also been raised about whether the debate is only about article titles. Technically yes. It is also only about personal names in situations where the person is known as using two or more successive initials. In looking for evidence in the various sources that I have used I found very few people to whom this situation would make a difference. If it is only about article titles the argument about separated initials would not be important since the initials would normally be at the beginning of the title. ☮ Eclecticology 20:22, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

I've just picked several British books of my shelves at random, and all of them used dots with spaces between them. Omitting spaces would just look ugly! -- Oliver P. 04:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on February 21, 2004.

Some style guides dictate that initials in people's names, or companies named after them, should be written with spaces after the periods and a space between the initials and the name, ie W. E. B. Du Bois. Others dictate against putting spaces between the initials, only a space between the initials and the name, ie W.E.B. Du Bois. Modern typographical practice in book and newspaper publishing leans towards the latter. (Currently, Wikipedia has a mixture of both.)

Please cast your vote: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions

-- Viajero 09:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The very latest editions of the most popular style guides have not, despite what is stated above, shown any tendency toward the "condensed" version: they continue to recommend spaces after periods. Can these alleged "other" style guides that dictate against spaces be named/referenced? -- Nunh-huh 09:41, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Economist Style Guide, 3rd Ed. 1993 -- Viajero 16:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

High quality typography uses a thin space after initials. I believe that the practice of using no space dates from the days of typewriters which used fixed-width characters. The period character always had the dot to the left of center, so typing "A.B" meant that there was already a half-space after the period (and 1.5 spaces looked excessive). However, in Wikipedia we don't have the option of a thin space; we have to choose between all or nothing. I don't like either. --Zero 10:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another advantage of a "thin space" over the space bar is that it combined the initials into a single "word" so they wouldn't get separated by the end of a line. To accomplish the same thing, I think Wikipedia should *not* put spaces in initials, or we're more likely to get browser views like this:

He was as good a children's author as A.

A. Milne

DavidWBrooks 15:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thin spaces are an option. HTML supports thin spaces, as well as a few other space sizes (see the entity reference). In particular, we could have some clever wikicode that automatically detects initials and inserts an HTML   after the period. Examples:

A.A.Milne (no space)

A. A. Milne (thin space)

A. A. Milne (full space)

Automatic thin-space insertion could potentially insert thin spaces where we don't want them, but it's one possible solution. Preventing line-breaking in the middle of someone's initials is easy though - we could just use the non-breaking space  , or CSS to specify that breaks should not occur after a thin space. If done right, it wouldn't have to ugly-up the wikitext either; just let the PHP do all the work. -- Wapcaplet 16:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thin space comes up as an unknown character on my computer ("A box A box Milne" isn't very easy to read). Before everyone jumps on me and tells me to get a better font, I'll point out that many people we are aiming Wikipedia at will not have administrator privileges on the computers they use at work/school. This is the first time that a character (which isn't part of a foreign alphabet) has not displayed on my machine while surfing Wikipedia. fabiform | talk 17:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, guess that isn't a great idea then :-) What browser/platform are you using, out of curiosity? Does it work to use the numerical equivalent  ? (used here: A. A. Milne) I wonder if this affects other entity references like —. -- Wapcaplet 17:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thin spaces are in the HTML spec, but most browswers do not yet support them. (Browser? Character set? Or both? I can't remember.) The upshot is the same either way, much as they would be the best—and also an asset for the mdash—but, alas, it ain't practical. Try again in a decade or so. Tannin 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm on Windows 2000, and crazy browser (which is based on IE). So pretty much your middle of the road non-techie user demographic! The numerical equivalent didn't work either, but I've never had any problems rendering mdashes etc, so don't panic too much! :) fabiform | talk 22:07, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I get the same thing with Windows XP Pro, IE6. --Rlandmann 23:33, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On Win2K IE5.5 I get boxes in the first instances, and spaces in the second BUT the thin spaces display wider than the standard space! --HappyDog 00:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here (Win NT IE5.5) I am getting very wide spaces instead of narrow spaces in all instances. Basically using the numeric code or the ampersand code is a non-starter. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we have the option of no periods after initials? I always type A A Milne, H G Wells etc, and I think it looks much cleaner. Adam 22:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that in a case where Oxford and Chicago agree, it is silly to go against them. The above-cited AP style manual is not exactly an example of good guidelines for typography; among other things, it advises against serial commas (i.e., it demands "A, B and C" vice "A, B, and C") and does not use italics at all. It is very specifically geared to print newspapers, and in particular to the technical restrictions of the teletype machines of bygone eras. (For that matter, following AP style means omitting all diacriticals from non-English names, something that is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia.)

As far as the line-breaking problem goes, simply follow good Web style and use the   entity. This is also standard LaTeX practice: One writes, for example, W.~E.~B. DuBois. --Tkinias 23:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thin spaces look like DOUBLE normal spaces on my browser. So instead of a thin space I see two full spaces. Optim 02:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia article titles for specific literary works

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on February 21, 2004.

Today, someone had initiated a series of articles with titles like Mother Earth (Asimov) for short stories by the author whose last name is Asimov. Isn't there a better way to title that sort of Wikipedia article? Bevo 22:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. :-) I would probably do Mother Earth (Asimov short story) rather than just Mother Earth (short story) since the title is so generic there are probably lots of authors who've used the title. When title searching is back you can do a little exploring to see what other people have done. Stan 22:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that was done by User:Ausir. He and User:Lefty are both new here, and have both been doing great work over at the Foundation Series. As for the Mother Earth (Asimov), since it's such a generic name, I think he made the best choice possible. IMHO, Mother Earth (short story) is a *terrible* title and Mother Earth (Asimov) is a much better choice. →Raul654 22:19, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Has this been thought out completely? What if it had been written by someone like Robin Cook or Stephen King whose last names have generic meaning and could be confused with categorizations outside authorship? I'd like to encourage either the form Mother Earth (short story) or a variation on Stan's as Mother Earth (short story, Asimov). Isn't there a Wikipedia help page somewhere already that suggests some patterns to follow? Bevo 23:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did a quick survey of existing titles and found these embellishments: (novel), (book) and (series). This (Asimov) qualifier is something new entirely. I suppose it will become an example of an alternative for us to study when it is completed, but is sure is irregular as it stands. It may actually turn out to be a "good thing", but I sure wish they had set the bar just a little bit higher when they wanted to do something better than current practice. Bevo 00:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a good initiative. Probably these embellishments should only be used when there's a dismbiguation article of some sort, which there is in this case at Mother Earth. My only worry is that I'm not completely sure how this differs to the now-discouraged practice of using subpages, but it seems it does. If the author's name is such as to be misleading, such as (King), then just use a longer version, as in (Stephen King). Andrewa 02:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this needs to be moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions? Do we move the entire discussion when that happens? (maybe without this "meta"-comment) Bevo 02:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree discussion should continue somewhere else. Andrewa 08:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, this is consistent with what's done with music. Since there are eight billion "Symphony Number 1"s, it's usually postfixed with (Bach) or whoever. I'm not sure if either is "better". -- Dwheeler

I'm rather new here, so I wasn't entirely aware of the naming convention. Should I move them (the other ones are Reason (Asimov), and Evidence (Asimov)? Ausir 18:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I say above, I'd like to see a naming pattern for literary works that would have employed
Mother Earth (short story, Asimov), Reason (short story, Asimov), etc. But at this time, that's just my feeling. I don't recall seeing clear guidance in a Wikipedia style guide, so you do what you feel is right (including leaving it as you have it now if you want to). What we need to do is try to either find that there is already a Wikipedia style guide that we can folow, and perhaps ammend, or create one. Bevo 00:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like to promote with your suggestion that Title (type, author) would be the most usable and scalable. This would allow commonly titled works to be distinguished and differentiated by type and author. This could also cover how written works outside "literature" could be named to avoid conflicts, which would have a much higher instance of possible overlap. For instance "Muscle Cars" is a title of numerous works, and with overlapping subject matter, but would be distinguishable by author. I think this proposal has the most scalable options, yet is not overly long or unwieldily to implement. Lestatdelc 19:35, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've added a suggested convention for literary works to the bottom of the main meta page. I did this because I couldn't find any other clear guidelines, and I was having misgivings about my choice of name for The Stranger (book), which perhaps really ought to be "The Stranger (novel)" instead. Comments, suggestions, and improvements are all welcome. —LarryGilbert 02:33, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

Lists

If an article is a list of internal links to more specific lists (e.g. List of fictional species), what should it be called? "List of fictional species", "Lists of fictional species", "List of lists of fictional species"...? — Timwi 03:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lists works for me. --mav

Deities and mythology

The goddess Venus: main page at Venus (mythology). Venus (goddess) is a redirect to that page. The god Mars: main page at Mars (god). Mars (mythology) is a redirect to that page.

Likewise: the mythical Chimera is at Chimera (mythology), but the mythical Kappa is at Kappa (mythical creature).

Should the naming convention be "name (mythology)", or something more specific? I support the former, personally. The main argument I can think of in favor of the latter is that it helps avoid disambiguation in the case of mythical beings sharing the same name, but those are the exception rather than the trule anyways. -Sean 06:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think (mythology) is more standard - I would suggest going for that. Martin 21:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They used to be spread out at (god), (goddess), (God), (Greek god) and all sorts of other disambiguators. A long time ago, I standardized them all to (mythology), but many more have been created or moved since then, so re-standardization is necessary. Tuf-Kat 21:52, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't maintaining NPOV require not making a judgement call over whether a god is `legitimate' or not? Using _(mythology) seems to imply that the deity in question isn't the object of real religion. I'm sure you would have unhappy poeple if you changed Jesus to Jesus Christ (mythology)... Tkinias 02:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seconded - (god) and (goddess) (and other deities) should be labeled as such, and not 'dismissed' and mythology in a POV manner. 80.255 19:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Buildings

I'm about to write an architecture article on the Auditorium Building in Chicago. I was wondering if there's any convention on architecture. I'm hesitant to use Auditorium Building as that just seems like disambiguation nightmare, so I've considered Auditorium Building, Chicago, and [[Auditorium Building {Sullivan)]]. Comments anyone? Isomorphic 02:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Inactivity ?

In the "Links w/in Wikipedia Name-space" section of this talk page there are a lot of naming convention links listed. Why have they not been added to the wikipedia:naming conventions page ?
In the "Conventions under consideration" section there are some topics listed. For how long will they be under consideration, can't that section be merged totally with section 2 - "Other specific conventions". I don't see any major discussions happening on those topics anyway. Jay 05:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Name of the article about a nationality: singular or plural (Tatar vs. Tatars)

I am surprised the issue is not discussed earlier. Some nations go singular, some plural. (Some nations have names without this problem: Roma and Sinti, Sami.) Below is a discussion from Talk:Tatars. IMO the issue must be resolved here once and for all. Mikkalai 21:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why singular title, not plural? --Shallot 11:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By a misunderstanding. "Tatar" is a representative of the "Tatars" nation, and there is nothing more to write about the term "Tatar". The original article was about the nation. Wikipedia:Naming convention specifically speak about usi singular an plural in the title. Specifically, plural is used when the name is used only in the plural. The name of the nation is "Tatars", not "Tatar". Hence I am moving the article back. Mikkalai 20:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
On the second thought, 90% of cases of mentioning a nationality is an adjective, and it creates inconveniences when creatig references: It is an easy way to refer "tatars" to "tatar" by the bracket trick: [tatar]s, but not vice versa. An additional confusion is that tatar may refer to language as well. So I see a grain of wisdom in Shallot's decision now. In any case, before any further article renaming I am putting the issue for discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Mikkalai 21:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should be any different from the standard policy - not only is Tatar also usable as an adjective, but presumably one member of the Tatars is Tatar? (I know nothing about the topic, so feel free to tell me that this is not the case.) Thus the standard reasons apply for using the singular in the title - ease of linking, consistency across the project, etc.

People seem to constantly question this policy, but I see almost no circumstances under which we need make an exception. It would seem to me that bacteria were something almost always discussed in the plural, but you can have one bacterium, and so that is where our article should be. If you're not convinced, follow the same logic through for ants, or chickens: sure, we could have a mixture, but where would you draw the line? So, if it's possible to have one Tatar - i.e. the s is a genuine plural, not a linguistic oddity like physics, et al - then that should be the name of the article. If you come across any other examples that break this rule, you have my support in moving them. - IMSoP 21:54, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and note if you haven't already that there is a seperate page dedicated to this rule with its own discussion, to which this discussion should perhaps ultimately be moved. - IMSoP 22:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and note that was exactly my reference, if haven't read my argiments about tatars above: "tatar" an "tatars" are different notions: tatar is a person, tatars is a nation. Mikkalai 22:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid the distinction doesn't carry for me: surely one instance of the nation of Tatars is a Tatar, in just the same way that one member of a colony of honeypot ants is a honeypot ant? I think it is far tidier to use the same convention throughout, and simply use the singular whenever feasible, but I guess I may not represent the majority on this. See also (once I've saved it) a more general comment I'm preparing in another browser-tab as I type this one. - IMSoP 22:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Identity

Latest comment: 21 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could Hyacinth or someone else explain to me the rationale for these conventions, perhaps giving some examples? It seems to be concerned with general terminology, not article naming in particular (which is what the page is about, I think?). —LarryGilbert 21:47, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

This is very much a big issue in article content, but is also a current naming issue. MSM, which was about the term "MSM" which refers to people, now redirect to Gay sex the activity, which used to be Same-sex sexual practices, which used to be Homosexual behavior. The convention as stands is written by me and will most likely be opposed by some and need to be worked on. Hyacinth 22:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Same/different sex/gender

I would put forward and advocate that the use of the "same-sex" and "different-sex" be changed to "same-gender" and "opposite-gender". Not only does it remove any connotation of "different" being at times seen in a context of "normal" and "different" but also more cohesive to many of the issues surrounding gender and gender identity. For example, what about issues and articles which discuss people who are inter-sexed (i.e. people with indetemrinante gentalia or gender)? The term gender is more expansive and inclusive and takes into account the issues surrounding gender and how they relate to chromosomal sex and the social construction of gender. On a more grammatical and pedantic note, it is also less ungainly than saying for instance "same-sex sex" or "different-sex sexuality". Lestatdelc 23:19, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

What is the opposite-gender of inter-sexed? anthony (see warning) 23:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your question goes to my point. What most people use "sex" as a descriptor for is in actuality "gender" which is a psychological and sociological construct. Hence the need to use that term since in such cases, chromosomal sex is disconnected to gender (the outward presentation of masculine or feminine, etc.), not to mention that intersexed people can often be of indeterminate sex, so their gender is how they are perceived both externally and how they perceive themselves. The suggestion about "opposite", vs. "different" is because there is (especially in certain "contreversial" context) and implied POV or bias within the term. Something being "different" can often within a social context be mildly, or even overtly negative. I posit that the terminology I have suggested is non-bias and better segues into the issues when discussing sex and gender within the context of trans, intersexed people and so on. This is also how many sociologists and people in the mental health field are defining things and trying to establish a more clear schema of terminology for and surrounding such issues. Lestatdelc 23:52, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Can you dig up examples for "opposite-gender" being recommended by sociologists and mental health techs? Also see: User:Hyacinth/Style guide.Hyacinth 00:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am at work at the moment and I would literally have to dig out and try and find some of my old papers on the issues of gender terminology when I was working for an advocacy group when we were going to be testifying at a city council meeting here in Portland when a transgender anti-discrimination ordnance was being discussed (and passed), but off the top of my head you can check out The mission statement of the APA's div 44 group on transgender issues not to mention the joint resoultion on ussage of "gender" instead of "sex" when such issues have come up when crafting a bill in parliment. There are also a lot of stuff I would have parse through again when I was sifting through the APA's discussions about Gender dysphoria and how it relates to trans issues. There is a lot of discussion in the litaratre when merge the DSM-III-R categories of Transsexualism and Gender Identity Disorder of Adolescence or Adulthood, Nontranssexual Type (GIDAANT) in the DSM-IV but I don't have anythign handy on it at the moment. Lestatdelc 00:42, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Replacing same-sex with same-gender seems extremely questionable to me, particularly when it comes to sex (the action). Because same-sex usually refers to, excuse the word, same plumbing, same with different-sex. Same or different plumbing leads to certain technical things, nothing more and nothing less. Same and different gender on the other hand leads to a number of questions, including those of identity, identifying the relation (no matter how long- or short-lived it may be) and some more. In Human sexuality the two things are mixed up, leading to rather confusing information. (But then, the article is very confusing anyway.) Two people who have the same gender can have same-sex sex or different-sex sex, depending on the particular plumbing of both. Although most of the time it will be same-sex sex, which makes the replacement with same-gender even more pointless.

Also, when talking about other stuff, it makes also sense to describe exactly what you are talking about. The marriage question for transgendered people is seen as a question of "same sex" for some, especially its opponents, and "different gender" for others. So replacing "same sex" with "same gender" would in this case too, produce a false description. I'd say instead of some broad half-baked PC replacement, which does work even worse than the expression it replaces (which does not work too well, either), same-sex and different-sex should be replaced where necessary and with whatever term actually makes sense in a given context. -- AlexR 20:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point, could you write up a short guide for when "same/different(/opposite) gender" is appropriate and when "same/different sex" is appropriate? Hyacinth 21:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

"Short guide" is not so simple, because especially "same and different sex" is used in various meanings:

Same and different physical sex, which can only be partially changed, compare the arguments about chromosomes which are often used for example to declare marriages, usually of transgendered people, as invalid.
Same and different anatomical, particular genital sex, which makes sense when talking about sexual activities (but only then); although refering to say, sex between a lesbian couple where one partner happens to be a pre-op transwoman as "different sex" would be seen by many as extremely insulting, see Talk:Homosexuality. Also, the sex taking place would in all likelihood not be quite the same as ordinary male-female sex; the transwoman involved at least would probably not be particularly interestes, even if the hormones usually taken would not prevent that in most cases, anyway.
Same and different legal sex Tricky, because many documents and laws do indeed refer to sex instead of gender, so technically, these terms are not entirely incorrect, although "gender" certainly makes more sense here.

Since the problems with "same and different sex" only apply to transgendered and many intersex people, though, which are a minority, it would probably make sense to stick to "same and different sex", especially when talking about medical or legal matters and only add that matters can be more complicated when transgender and intersex people come into play at all.

Same and different gender makes sense to use when talking about identities or gender roles, but are tricky when refering to medical or legal matters. In relationships between people (not just with significant others, but between all people), it is gender that counts.
The only exceptions are either particularly obnoxiously impolite people who know the other person to be transgendered or intersex and who insist on refering to them as people of their birth gender; or transgendered people who are very bady adapted to their new gender role, although that is in almost all cases a temporary problem.
And of course there are usually "gender problems" for transgendered and some intersex people before they transition or even know the name for the problem, but that is of course the core problem of transgendered people.
I don't think it makes sense to refer to these exceptions very often.

Another problem of course is to be certain what exactly is same sex or same gender when refering to many transgendered and intersex people (different is usually not a problem). Even if we stick to peoples self-identification and the appearance of their bodies, which by no means all people do, many transgender and intersex people do see neither their bodies nor their gender (identitiy and/or role) as clearly male or female, making it rather difficult to find people who are "same sex" and/or "same gender". As I already said in Talk:Homosexuality, different-sex, different-gender gay (or lesbian) relationships are just as possible between transgendered or intersex people and cisgendered people as different-sex, same-gender gay or lesbian relationships or same-sex, same-gender gay or lesbian ones. And that is just self-definition descriptions.

So a "short guide" might be a bit of a problem. The only solution is to decide in each case what exactly one is refering to at the moment and use the proper words. Proper words are probably more than just same/different sex/gender, though. -- AlexR 23:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Lists of pieces

Lists of pieces has a format borrowed from Lists of solo piano pieces, which lists pages by composer, style or period, and nationality or culture. Now a list of pages itself and every alphabetical page clearly violates the "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" convention, example: List of solo piano pieces by composer: G. Do we add lists such as this as an exception to that convention or make the "lists" one list instead of many? Hyacinth 08:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jr., Sr., Inc., etc.

I would like to recommend an addition to the rules for personal names. I suggest we follow the standard practice in the United States, as set forth in the Associated Press Stylebook, and omit any commas preceding suffixes such as "Jr." and "Sr." in personal names as well as suffixes such as "Inc.," "Ltd.," and so forth in company names. acsenray

That's not "standard practice", it's one of two equally acceptable standard practices, one of which uses no commas, and the other of which places them before and after the "Jr." or "Sr." element. (Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 6.49). - Nunh-huh 21:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

under consideration

How and by whom are the "Conventions under consideration" under consideration? When and how are they adopted or abandonded. Hyacinth 23:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Medicine

Latest comment: 21 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since the start of WikiDoc (continued in Wikiproject (Clinical medicine) there have been discussions whether articles on medical conditions should be named by their scientific title (myocardial infarction) or their common names (heart attack). Arguments in favour of common names:

The articles are easier to find
Most readers are not medical professionals

But there are also arguments in favour of redirecting these terms to articles titled by their scientific terminology, such as is common practice in Chemistry and Biology articles:

Lay terms are imprecise. "Heart attack" does not specify what part of the heart is affected, and by what mechanism.
Lay terms are bound by geographical constraints (many diseases have different names in different parts of the world).
Some terms are suggestive of something that the disease is not (heartburn is not cardiac, nor does it involve burning).
Nobody has ever died from being redirected

I've previously raised this on Wikipedia:naming conventions (common names), eliciting only a response from people whom I'd informed. Hopefully it will find more of an audience over here.
JFW | T@lk 12:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I would note that "It is in harmony with the general Wikipedia policy of using naming common names." is another argument in favor of common names, and a strong one too. I don't see why the article can't just be at the common name but use the technical name throughout in the body of the article, with the first sentence saying something like "a heart attack, known technically as a myocardial infarction is ..... Myocardial infarctions are .... etc. I don't see any strong reasons not to conform to policy of placing the article at the most common English name. Nohat 23:59, 2004 May 9 (UTC)