Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (language policy)

Proposed naming convention

It is Wikipedia English-language policy that titles, persons and events be uniformly rendered in English-translation followed by foreign-language translation (in parenthesis and with Latin script in italics) in both article title and first appearance in the body of the article.

Submitted by HanumanDass 02:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion

Consistency across foreign (non-English) languages would eliminate conflict. One standard would apply to all foreign languages in the translation of titles, names and events to their English-language equivalents.

Included in the original version of this proposal are "titles, persons and events" but this list can be shortened or expanded. HanumanDass 02:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some examples. I don't know how sweeping a change this is. Preferably controversial examples. Tempshill 18:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Any good examples of where this sort of thing has come into conflict? Also, are recently borrowed foreign loan words like intifada to be considered English or not? Mithridates 09:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what is being proposed here. Is tsar a good example for a title? (Or does title refer to the title of a book or picture or object?) I think this guidance (when/if it gets fully expressed and accepted) may help me with a dilemma I have over Sir William Siemens: currently he is located at Carl Wilhelm Siemens, but in the English language world he is known by the anglicised version of his name. Noisy | Talk 18:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

While this is a good proposal in principle, I think that there are some problems which will need solving, as things are not as simple as "foreign script" and then "English transliteration in italics".

Certain languages, for example Hebrew has many ways of transliterating words. For example in the article Ashkenazi Jews the name is analysed this way: Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim (אַשְׁכֲּנָזִי אַשְׁכֲּנָזִים Standard Hebrew, Aškanazi,Aškanazim, Tiberian Hebrew, ʾAškănāzî, ʾAškănāzîm, pronounced sing. [ˌaʃkəˈnazi] pl. [ˌaʃkəˈnazim], not with [ʦ] as in Tzar). They give two valid Latin transliterations and one in the IPA. This would be an obvious violation of this proposed policy, wouldn't it? What would be done in such circumstances? Izehar 11:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal currently suggests changing the title of all of these articles...I'm not sure that the submitter understands exactly how much work this would entail, and how much conflict it would engender. Izehar gives just one example of the sort of problems we would encounter. The page move wars would be epic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change

It would be hard to implement. I mean, we would have to move Israel to Israel (ישראל ''Yisra'el'') and Russia to Russia (Россия ''Rossiya''), and it would be a nightmare trying to agree on the appropriate transliteration. I mean, one could argue, why should we say the transliteration of Россия is Rossiya and not, say, Rossija (which is also widely used). Also, how would the article Greece be? The very name of that country in its own language is disputed. Possible titles include:

and there are many more possibilities

The edit wars would be dreadful, especially in cases like this, all of those names are used and all are perfectly valid. I don't think that this policy would be a good idea as it is now. Perhaps if it only regulated how transliterations would be laid out on the page. For example it could follow this pattern:

English name (Name of language: In foreign alphabet Latin transliteration)

Thus, the example Israel would be:

Israel (Hebrew: ישראל Yisra'el)

Nice, isn't it? Of course, it has to mention the native name only once; everywhere else, it would be plain 'Israel'. This way, the policy is regulating style and enforcing a sense of consistency throughout Wikipedia. For example in other articles, the Latin transliteration of the foreign name might not be in italics; it could be in bold or not emphasised at all. With such a policy, all transliterations would be placed after the foreign name, in italics etc. Izehar 22:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italics are not allowed on page titles. --cesarb 01:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting changing page titles. I'm suggesting standardising transliterations. Izehar 15:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Version

Thanks to everybody for the input. Based on that input I am putting up a second version of the proposed policy.

The use of the word “title” with two different meanings has caused confusion. The title in “titles, persons and events” was not intended to refer to article titles. Changing article titles on a mass schedule will not work.

Current naming policy is that names of monarchs, for example, are picked on the basis of majority usage among English-editors (a large majority of whom are native English-editors) without regard to input from non-native English editors. The proposed policy is intended to correct this imbalance. English is a universal language. Its development in Wikipedia needs to be a community-wide project rather than the sole purview of native English-editors. English as a universal language provides obvious benefits and advantages to native English-speakers but it also imposes a certain responsibility toward non-native English editors when it comes to the naming of monarchs and their titles, for example, from non-English speaking countries.

Below is a second version of the proposed policy with a more limited field of application. The intent of the policy proposal is to take into account the opinions and needs of non-native English Wikipedia editors.

"It is Wikipedia English-language policy that 1) titles of nobility, military rank and political status, 2) names of persons with such titles or status and 3) names of important historical events and concepts associated with such persons and titles, be uniformly rendered in English-language translation/transliteration followed by foreign-language translation/transliteration (in parenthesis and with Latin script in italics) in their first appearance in the body of an article." Dass 01:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical. Just to pick Romanian-language examples, does this mean that you intend to transliterate city names like Iaşi, Rădăuţi, and Făgăraş that use letters not found in the English alphabet? Does this mean that the Centru Civic, a complex of buildings in Bucharest dating from the Communist era, becomes the Civic Center, a generic term that has very different connotations? That Ştefan cel Mare becomes Stephen the Great, a name by which I, as a native English speaker, have never heard him called? That the newspaper Evenimentul Zilei becomes The Events of the Day, again a usage I have never heard? Or am I misunderstanding? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language editors can at any time vote one of two usages: 1) Centru Civic (English: Civic Center) or 2) Civic Center (Romanian: Centru Civic). The Romanian-speaking English-language editors would presumably not object to the former usage and could not reasonably object to the latter usage. Ştefan cel Mare becomes Stephen the Great anytime a majority of English-language editors decide on it under the current naming guidelines and procedures. Romanian-speaking English-language editors whether native or non-native are far outnumbered by the native English-language editors. Ditto for Evenimentul Zilei becoming The Events of the Day. Under the current naming convention a majority can decide that the English-language rendition of Centru Civic is Civility Center or Center of Civic Platitudes or what-have-you and the Romanian-speaking editors can only fume. There is no way to preclude a political decision.

Under the proposed policy Romanian-speaking English-language editors would collaborate in the translation/transliteration of Romanian names into English. Currently such issues are handled on a time-consuming case by case basis. Now this may or may not be a problem for Romanian but I can think of languages in which the case-by-case voting approach is prohibitive on two counts: large volume and institutionalized bias. Dass 08:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Language Policy Proposal

The discussion above has resulted in a broader language policy proposal at Wikipedia:Language policy.

Synchronistically, another new policy proposal immediately preceded my new proposal at (Wikipedia:Hypothetical_Future_Concensus) and attracted my attention because it appears to address a common issue underlying both proposals, i.e., what is consensus and how is it achieved? This new proposal also raises an interesting philosophical issue concerning process versus product. Dass 12:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to consensus, a reference for English names could really help. During these days we are facing a debate about names of Italian places (like Trentino-Alto Adige, Adige, Bolzano), where it is not clear if an English version for Italian or German names is commonly in use in English speaking world. -- Pietro 13:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]