Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Proper names/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed style noticeboard

Moot

There is currently a discussion at the village pump about creating a noticeboard (similar to the RSN, ORN and NPOVN) for people with questions about how to implement Wikipedia's style policies. The proponents say that one centralized board would be easier for editors to find than many talk pages, and opponents say that it might be a venue for forum-shopping and drama. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Diacritical marks

The problem with allowing markings for vowels, per the given language, is that they can't easily be searched for using an English keyboard. Yes, there are "ways around it." But since the encyclopedia is written in English, why is a "way around" even needed? It seems elitist. It makes entry that much harder for the newbie. Student7 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you give an example of an article title that cannot easily be searched for? In French or German, say. --Boson (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that when I search within an article, I can't find ecole with an accent acute using my keyboard.

Articles are already pretty much bound to be in English with WP:UE. Student7 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any browser that doesn't treat Ecole and École as the same search string. If you have one that does, look for a settings/preferences switch to change that behavior. Failing that, search for cole. Failing that, search for other text from the name of the institution or the quotation, since école is unlikely to appear in an English Wikipedia article outside of one. We're not going to misquote things or misrepresent the names of things (i.e., blatantly lie to our readers) just to make your in-page searching easier. Get better software.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Henry" versus "Henri" for historical French figures

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Henry III of France#Why the anglicized "Henry"?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Names in other scripts

In the section on personal names I propose to add a paragraph discussing the way to deal with foreign names that are originally witten in a non-latin script. For use in the bulk of the article a transcription is clearly required, but a transcription is always an approximation. The only authoritative spelling is the name in the original script. Therefore it should always be added at least once in an article referring to such a person. This is common practice in English language newspapers in countries that use another script for the local language. The English language WP, aiming at an international audience should apply the same principle. −Woodstone (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The key words are accuracy and accessibility. The name in original script clearly makes it more accurate. Add to it that most articles about a person will be found in the individual's native sources. So having the name in original script makes searches and links easier. werldwayd (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And we don't need a "paragraph" on it, more like a single short sentence. But what problem are we trying to do solve? I have hard time finding any bios that don't provide the original, non-Latin name, and the few I can find are miserable micro-stubs. It's something that gets automatically fixed by successive editors as the page develops.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not specifically meant for article titles, but for personal names in general. For article titles there is already the guideline: "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged". However also for foreign names just mentioned in an article the addition of the original name is informative. There was a dispute in the article Tham Luang cave rescue, where Thai names were added with support of several editors, but they were summarily deleted by another editor. −Woodstone (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And they arguably should have been removed since that's not a bio article; English-speakers have no use of the Thai names of non-notable people. They do have a use for the Thai name of Yingluck Shinawatra, for doing further detailed research on this notable figure and because sources they may already have (in a few cases) may be referring to ยิ่งลักษณ์ ชินวัตร. This isn't at all likely for some teenager who was stuck for a few weeks in a cave; English-speakers know about this entirely from English-language media in probably 99.99% of cases. It's really a WP:NOT##INDISCRIMINATE thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not just "some teenager who was stuck for a few weeks in a cave". The editor in question will not allow Thai script to be included for any of the Thai people involved. Khiikiat (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

Perhaps monolingual English speakers have no interest in foreign names, but the English WP is widely used by an international readership. Transcribed names are not the real names of people, but only approximations. To give accurate information the original and only authentic form of the name is necessary. For a person who has a biographic article, a link to that may suffice, but in case where such an article does not exist, the real foreign name should be added at least once. −Woodstone (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't appear to have actually read what I wrote. We don't need Thai-script names of individuals in an article about a cave rescue on English Wikipedia; they are not subject of the article. It's just clutter. At a bio subject's own article, it's not clutter, but integral to full coverage of the subject (and even then there are exceptions; for India-related articles we usually don't do it at all because there are too many scripts in use in India; we only do it for subjects closely tied to one particular script, e.g. Sanskrit loanwords like guru and swami, not bios). What you want to do isn't done in articles about disasters and rescues in China or Japan or Korea or Russia, so why should it be done in articles about such in Thailand?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully support what Woodstone and werldwayd have written above. I find opposition to Woodstone's proposal very difficult to comprehend. Khiikiat (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

And I've provided detailed rationale against it, which none of the three of you have addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I cannot discover any rationale beyond the subjective and flimsy "English-speakers have no use of the Thai names of non-notable people". In contrast I cannot see you reacting to any of the arguments put forward for inclusion. It has nothing to do with notability. If they were notable by themselves they would have their own article with properly scripted name. In this article they are the main subjects and are given only approximate names, not their original ones. Apart from this, the proposal is not limited to this article, but should be a general guideline to improve accuracy. −Woodstone (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The romanization of Thai names

I notice that Thai does not appear in this list of romanization conventions. Can we create Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Thai)? Khiikiat (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

There are hundreds of scripts that do not appear on that list and for which there are no special guideline pages. If there is no frequent dispute about how to transliterate Thai, we do not need a guideline page on it. Guidelines exist to settle and prevent disputes, not to "recognize something as important", which seems to be the idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not the idea. (I have said nothing whatsoever about the need to "recognize something as important".) The guidelines exist to ensure that non-Latin scripts are romanized logically and consistently in a manner that befits a serious encyclopaedia. And there are disputes regarding the romanization of Thai names (and terms). Khiikiat (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

The key word here is consistency throughout languages with non-Latin alphabets. Chinese may be the most difficult as in this regard but I would have thought naming of Thai or Vietnamese or Japanese individuals would be more uniform thus easier to apply. werldwayd (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There is reasonable consensus among editors with some knowledge of Thai to use RTGS transcriptions, as that is an officially proclaimed systematic and linguistically founded system. Although not an official guideline WP:MOSTHAI endorses this. It is certainly useful to add the relevant line to the list as proposed. −Woodstone (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Are all place names considered to be proper names and to be in proper case?

Are road junctions an exception, so I-90 exit 20 and M1 junction 20 (not I-90 Exit 20 nor M1 Junction 20)? Geofpick (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)