Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

Infobox

Hi. Our naming convention here states that: "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article ..." And of course the infobox is summary of the article. But an editor has now repeatedly deleted the native spelling of the name of a person from the infobox (as a secondary reflection of the name, after the English, same as in the first sentence of the article). And I'm certain I've seen such reflected commonly throughout the Project. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the infobox in question have a field for the native spelling? If so, it can, of course, be used; no doubt about it. On the other hand, if the infobox does not have a dedicated field and the native spelling had been appended to the English spelling or inserted into a field with a different purpose, then it should be removed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 16:59 (UTC)

Why? If a specific infobox does not support a common feature of infoboxes, why should we remove attempts to include the data within the limits of the existing template? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Because, first, including non-related information into a field designed for something else entirely is never a good practice. If it were OK, the infoboxes would have had just a bunch of generic fields into which editors would have been able to insert whatever information they pleased. That clearly is not the case. Also, infoboxes not only serve as a quick reference for the readers, they are parsed by various tools to extract the data automatically (possibly including, in the long run, for our own Wikidata). If you cram native name into, say, the place of birth field (for the sole reason that the native name field is unavailable and the end result looks OK visually), you won't be doing whatever automated processes depend on that field any favors.

Second, the design of an infobox does (or at least is supposed to) reflect the consensus of the editors working on the articles in that particular field. If the infobox does not include a field for native name, chances are the editors didn't want it there in the first place. It may, of course, also be an oversight, in which case a quick note on the corresponding WikiProject's talk page asking for the field to be added should clarify the issue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:39 (UTC)

A) I don't see this as a case of "a field designed for something else entirely." It is a field for the name. There are actually two such fields. The native spelling of the name is one variant of precisely .. the name. B) Insertion of the native name in the golfer infoboxes reflects, I would think, that editors do not feel it inappropriate. Just the opposite. C) It seems illogical that we should mandate use of the native name in the first sentence of the article, and then forbid it (not even leave it as optional) in the ibox.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There are different kinds of names: full names, legal names, names under which a person is best known, nicknames, pen names, native full names, native short names, and so on, and so forth. This is why it is important that the template's documentation makes it clear exactly what kind of name the field is intended for (and I can see how for some a "full name" may not be the equivalent of a "native name"). And with Infobox golfer, since the documentation does not elucidate the field's purpose, common practices in that field is what you should be looking at. Do article's about other golfers include native spelling in the "full name" field? If so, there should be no problem to do the same. If they don't, then the issue should be taken to WikiProject Golf. You may very well find out that it's a simple oversight or that a perfectly good yet non-obvious reason exists to not include native spellings in golfer infoboxes. Since I'm not involved with that WikiProject, this is the best recommendation I can provide.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:53 (UTC)

• It (the golfer infobox) has: a) a field for the name (and a native spelling of a name is of course by its nature a spelling of the name), and b) a spelling mandated for inclusion in the first line of the article), and a field for "full name." Common usage of the golfer ibox commonly reflects native spelling -- see, e.g., Korean Ji-Young Oh, Japanese Tōru Nakamura, Russian Svetlana Gounkina, Taiwanese Amy Hung, Thai Thongchai Jaidee. If it is important enough to be mandated in the first sentence of an article, it seems common sense it is reasonable to reflect it in the ibox ... which is summary of the article. Iboxes as a rule generally reflect mandated information.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying which infobox you are talking about. From what I see, {{Infobox golfer}}'s documentation does not clarify what it is exactly that the full_name field is supposed to contain. If the majority of golfer articles use it to hold the native spelling, then you are, of course, correct that it can be used for that purpose in other articles about golfers. And if the field's purpose is different, then I would say that the participants of WikiProject Golf should edit the template's documentation to make it more clear. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2013; 17:43 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I can't speak for the majority of article -- I haven't checked more than a handful -- but from what I see it is common for native name to be reflected in the ibox, where it is reflected in the article in the first place. And of course I can't, without delving deeper, see if any instances where it is not reflected in the ibox reflect inadvertence or judgment being applied. The titles "name" and "full name" are broad enough to include native name -- they certainly don't by their general meaning exclude native name. And, as Vega points out, we generally are happy to include such info in iboxes. There is no clear effort at prohibition here. And, if we as a matter of course reflect the native name of, say, the Prime Minister of Japan (Shinzō Abe), why would we mandate deletion of a the native name of a Japanese golfer ... or are people suggesting stripping away the prime minister's native name from the ibox? Plus, the other points I make above. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fraternities and Sororities

Most USA Fraternities and Sororities are represented by a combination of 2 or 3 Greek Letters. While the standard is to name the article after the spelled out Greek Letters such as Alpha Phi Delta, my question is about redirects from the actual combination of Greek Letters such as ΑΦΔ which redirects to Alpha Phi Delta. Should those be added to Category:Redirects from alternative languages?Naraht (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Naming Conventions (use English) apply to mentions of names in other articles?

This guideline seems to directly address naming conventions only for Wikipedia articles in which the articles are primarily about the person, place, or thing for which there is more than one name version:

• The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language ...
• The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known.
• The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged ...
• When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version.

etc.

What about mentions of names in articles that are primarily about a different subject? For example, what about when Beijing is mentioned in an article that is about the Presidency of Richard Nixon? In such a situation, the name in question will not appear in the article title and possibly may not appear in the lede or the opening paragraph of the main part of the body of the article either. Is this guideline meant to cover such situations, and if so, shouldn't the language of the guideline be tweaked to make that clear? Dezastru (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Related Request for Comments (Pablo Casals vs Pau Casals)

There is a related Request for Comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. Dezastru (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Icelandic (proper) names

"The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." Unlike for Irish vs. English where there are two versions for place names, in Iceland (and I assume other countries) there are just Icelandic names with (often) no English counterpart (counts double for peoples names). You would for sure find them on an Icelandic map. I assume you can always use them directly if you know them (and provide redirect for transliterated version). There has never been any controversy brought to my attention. The Icelandic alphabet use diacritics (and ö, þ, æ. People tend to misread Þþ for Pp and Ðð for Dd. I would think including these letters would be ok for peoples names (in title) as they are not that confusing? When putting names in new articles people just copy-paste? Or if not use the redirect (is there any rule about linking to real name and not the redirect?).

If people get famous then in English reliable sources you would see Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and hardly ever Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson that you would see in Icelandic reliable sources (that you don't want to add to article). Allowing only "í" but not "ð" in title looks very wrong.. comp.arch (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Comp.arch, I'm afraid the wording in this guideline is out of date and/or reflects the views of the editors who have edited the guideline, but as has been pointed out on this Talk page archive before in any case is at odds with Wikipedia's actual article reality. All straightforward Latin alphabet European bios and geos on en.wp have full font diacritics (except one). Icelandic names have been brought to RM, see Talk:Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, but the consensus of editors is to treat Icelandic names the same as every other Latina alphabet name. Ideally the guideline needs editing to reflect the whole corpus of the encyclopedia rather than the views of a small group of editors on this Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)