Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bantu language names

Should we follow the example set by Swahili language for other Bantu languages and avoid the prefix in the title, for example at Ganda language? There's a request to move the article to Luganda, but I'm finding plenty of references to "Ganda" both in linguistic and non-linguistic works (such as art, history, and evangelism), some published in Uganda by Ganda authors. Also, in general, since many Bantu languages are obscure, should we try to follow the native or anglicized form? For example, some journals request that names in articles be in a specific format (such as "Swahili" and "the Swahili" rather than Kiswahili and Waswahili), and I can see advantages to consistent usage in an encyclopedia as well. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Bantu). This is not yet linked to the MOS nav boxes, pending y'all's input. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not all that excited about generating a lot of additional guideline documents. Wouldn't this fit quite easily within the framework of this page?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It could, but the existing document is so short, I thought that would seem an undue concentration on Bantu. How about this?:

Person	Motswana
People	Batswana
Language	Setswana
Country	Botswana

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, that term is preferred, especially when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes. For example, Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. The {{Infobox Bantu name}} may be used to list the various affixed forms, as at right for Tswana.

(Taivo mentions also Berber, and there are other families around the world with such patterns, so we might want to move the template from "NC name". On the other hand, "NC" is obscure enough that we might just take it as arbitrary.) — kwami (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Juu dialects

I'd like advice on what to do with Juu dialects‎. Ethnologue classifies them as 6 languages, though at least one appears to be spurious. Heine considers them a single language (language complex/dialect continuum), which he calls !Xun. The people are the !Kung, and that would appear to be the common name. Move to "!Kung language", with the component lects demoted to dialects? — kwami (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, especially as long as the information on competing interpretations is clear to the reader. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Perhaps we should clarify what the options are for articles related to cultures/peoples when we disambiguate them from an XXX language article. We have, for example, Zulu people, French people, and Hawai'ian people but we also have Germans, Poles, and Russians. From usage, it seems that the modifier "people" is used most often, though when the plural noun is different from the adjectival form (e.g. Ukrainians vs. Ukrainian), the former by itself is a plausible choice. Very rarely, (e.g. Maori [where there is currently a related discussion on this point] and Guarini Guarani) the people article is the default and there is no disambiguation page. Should we prescribe one over the others? Should we proscribe any? Are there conditions or typologies I haven't considered? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Guarini is actually a disambiguation page. --Avenue (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Guarani. The clarification is sort of moot now since that, too, is now a DAB page. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have the dab page by default. Personally, I prefer "X people", but I doubt it matters much. Maybe "Xs" for the better known peoples.

Also, I added a section at WP:Naming conventions (people). That was intended for biographies, but is the obvious place for a reader to look for this. I tried to say something about "tribe", which is inconsistently and often wrongly used on WP. I don't expect that to be stable, so take a shot if you think it can use work.

IMO, "X" should be the title when we do not have separate articles for the people and their language, or when only one of those goes by the name "X". — kwami (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The main argument given for the status quo in the current discussion at Talk:Māori is that the people is the primary topic for the term "Māori". Our Māori page should therefore be about the people, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and not be reserved for disambiguation. The issue arises because the accepted English plural form for Māori (people) is now simply Māori, which is the same term as used for their language. This is not true for any of the other examples listed above, and explains why the situation is rare. There is no need to violate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this rare case. --Avenue (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the case for lots of peoples: English, Welsh, Irish, French, Zulu, Swahili, Yoruba, Igbo, Ashanti, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish--essentially anything ending in -ish or -ese, which is quite a bit. It's precisely because the same form is used for both that we have dab pages. Primary topic is fine, but it's often difficult to judge, many editors link to the bare name without consideration of which they mean, and it varies from people to people. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a collective sense in which one can talk of "the English" (say), but that's not what I meant. I cannot speak of "five English" walking down the road (and the same applies to at least the other European examples in your list), but I can say "five Maori". (We can also use "a Maori" for the singular. There was a time when "five Maoris" would have been fine, but that now seems uneducated to my ears.) Maybe this isn't true for non-NZ English speakers. --Avenue (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

While it is important that the plural noun (Maori) is not different from the adjectival form (Maori), that simply means that we can't use the same format as with Germans or Russians (i.e. with an s ending).

The only options, then, are to add "people" when we can't pluralize or to make the unmodified form the default and disambiguate with hatnotes. It seems that, whatever we decide, there should be consistency across Wikipedia. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the conversation has died a little, perhaps we can reinvigorate it this way: the naming convention as it stands is ambiguous enough that it needs tweaking no matter what we decide. I've begun a proposed rewrite of one of the paragraphs to incorporate changes reflecting the position that Kwami and I have expressed (feel free to revise for clarity) and have set up a placeholder for those who have disagreed (I won't presume to write it myself). This way, we can all see clearly what's at stake beyond the Maori article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

.....You say "The only options, then, are to add "people" when we can't pluralize .....". That would create a title which means people people. Māori already means people. Moriori (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not in English it doesn't. When you say you "speak Maori", you're not saying you speak "people". And although the Georgians are people, Georgian culture is not therefore Maori culture. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably didn't mean to, but you have made my day. Māori has many meanings/usages, and people is one of them. Moriori (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In English, "Maori" does not mean "people." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither does Inuit, but in the Inuktitut language it means people. We have an article called Inuit, not an article called Inuit people. Moriori (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you brought that up. In the Maori language, maori means "normal" and the phrase for people is tangata maori.μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we don't have an Inuit people article because Inuit means people in another language, Moriori? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To put my five cents' worth, just because an ethnic name means "people" in some other language doesn't mean that meaning carries over in English. It's silly to prescribe that you can't say "Inuit people" in English just because of what Inuit means in an Inuit language. You simply can't make the argument that a sentence like "I speak Inuit" means "I speak people" in English and thus is not a valid English sentence. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. For what it's worth, the reason we don't have an Inuit people article is because there isn't overlap between the term for people and the language (the language is Inuktitut, though it is part of the group of Inuit languages). This discussion reflects that notion. The editors who've made such determinations could be wrong, but their reasoning wasn't "Inuit people would mean 'people people.'" — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-disambiguation

This is where drafting of the proposed changes to the naming conventions take place.

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language. This is especially so when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. If an English plural form (distinct from the singular name) exists, it may be used for the article about the people, as at Russians with a redirect from Russian people. The ambiguous common name should serve as a disambiguation page: Chinese, Tswana, Russian.

• Support and suggest that the final clause should be rewritten "the latter is not an option when the name of the people does not differentiate in form between singular and plural, as is the case for Maori" to avoid ambiguity. The proposal provides some logic and consistency in naming and comports with what is already largely established practice.μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of standard practice, see this list of ethnic names. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami added text regarding tribes and dialects, which I've taken out since I think it's a bit of a non-sequitor for this issue. Here's the text either way:

The terms tribe and dialect should only be used for tribes and dialects, such as Bukusu tribe (Luhya) and Bukusu dialect (Luhya), not for tribal or non-Western peoples in general. (Compare Luhya people and Luhya language, which are commonly but inaccurately called the Luhya tribe and Luhya dialect.)

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this isn't just a naming convention for languages, but also for peoples, could we agree on something to put back in? I've moved dozens of articles w 'tribe' in the title, most of which did not deal with tribes. The same is true of 'dialect', though most of those have been taken care of. However, IMO it would be a good idea to be clear on when these words are appropriate, and when they are not. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kwami wholeheartedly re "tribe" and believe his suggestion is non-controversial and that it should be executed now, as it can be done either as part of or separately from this proposal.μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think anyone has expressed disagreement on the issue of tribes/dialects here or at WP:Naming conventions (people) (Gadfium's note of disagreement doesn't pertain to tribes but on the issue we're trying to resolve here). I also agree with it, but was trying to stay focused. By the way, what's the meaning behind italicized forms and non-italicized forms? Did I mess it up in the draft? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I did. Removed from my 'tribe' proposal.

Removed the 'Maori' bit. Of course this is only an option when it's a possibility—do we really need to say that?

"(this is not an option when the name of the people does not differentiate in form between singular and plural, as is the case with Maori)"

— kwami (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might be wise to be explicit. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing reference to cases where the plural and singular are not differentiated is problematic - it will lead directly to people insisting that using the singular form alone for the nationality is fine, since it could be taken as the plural, and thus would vitiate the standard. Instead of removing Maori, we should retain it and add more examples such as Japanese as in "China frees two Japanese." μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about the wording now? It's fairly commonsense, so IMO the shorter the sweeter. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I still have the gut feeling that people will say something like "but Chinese is the distinct plural form of the word!" The problem is that distinct in this context is a relative and not absolute term. The question here is "distinct from what?" We should make it absolutely explicit that we mean when the plural form is not distinct from the singular, and, preferably, give examples. I think history shows that appeals to common sense have failed when we get people insisting on patent, false, and self-contradictory nonsense along the lines of 'everyone knows that, in Maori, Maori means Maori people.' μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 01:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Query: This subsection is headed "Pro-disambiguation", but the draft wording seems silent on whether disambiguation is required for terms like Maori, Japanese, Inuit etc that are both plural and adjectival forms (except perhaps if there are related opaque terms, e.g. that include prefixes). This does not seem in keeping with the discussion above. Is it meant to include a penultimate sentence such as "If the plural name for the people is the same as the adjectival form, e.g. Chinese, then the articles should be titled Chinese people and Chinese language, with Chinese being a disambiguation page"? The first sentence is also vague about what the common name is preferred to; would "that term is preferred over variant forms" be clearer? --Avenue (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How's that? — kwami (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A little repetitive. I've combined your recent addition to the first sentence. I think this addresses Avenue's concern about the paragraph not saying what we've been wanting it to say. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've revised it slightly to fix the grammar (a sentence fragment). I think "explicit denotation" is hard to follow, so perhaps this is still too brief, but it is much clearer than before. --Avenue (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I added "from the singular" to address my concern. It could be put in parentheses if necessary, and I am not reverted outright.μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need, but it doesn't hurt any apart from making it wordier. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I don't know if "explicit disambiguation" is the right term as it evokes wp:disambiguation without saying what we mean. We're trying to tell people to put "people" when it's ambiguous, which I was hoping "explicit denotation" and the Chinese examples would do. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either really do, esp. if we need to explain what 'a distinct plural form' means. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with the current wording and recent edits. I just wish to make myself perfectly clear on the issue of a distinct plural form. So please forgive me.

One could argue that, unlike the count noun rice, which lacks a plural form in normal usage, the word sheep does have a plural form, which is sheep. This form is distinct. That is, it is not some other form such as *shep or *sheeep or *sheeps nor is it variable according to author or geography or day of the week. If you spell it any way other than sheep you have spelled it wrong. You cannot properly say something such as the "*sheeps are." The proper plural form sheep is quite distinct from the improper plural form *sheeps. That being said, the form sheep is not distinct form the form sheep. The spelling and pronunciation of the plural form is not distinct from that of the singular form.

So yes, if you keep in mind the perversity of human nature, and the fact that no imaginable argument will long last unmade at wikipedia, if you are going to use the word distinct, it is distinctly necessary to specify what you are holding the plural form to be distinct from.

μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how one could argue that sheep has a distinct plural form. It's the same form as the singular, not distinct at all. (Rice does not have a plural, so the question does not arise.) — kwami (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Medeis isn't saying it's a distinct plural, only that it has a plural. Kind of a strange way of wording it, though. Doesn't the current wording indicate what "distinct" is from in this case? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"This form is distinct." — kwami (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I said I was quite happy with the current wording, and I still am. I am arguing that "distinct" on its own without the qualifier "from the singular" was fatally ambiguous. Indeed, the word "sheep" is not indistinct. It is distinct from the word sheet, and the misspellings shep and sheeep. It is just not distinct from the singular, with which it is identical in spelling and pronunciation, if not grammatical number. The bottom line is, I am happy with the current wording.μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see it. "Sheep" does not have a distinct plural. I don't see how that's ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that it has an indistinct plural? :)

The problem is that you are not differentiating between two possible senses of 'distinct', the first being absolute: well defined and the second being relative: different in form from something else. If a doctor tells you, 'you have a distinct mole on your back' he is not saying that the mole is distinct from other moles, but that the mole is not indistinct, possibly a pimple or a discoloration. If we do not retain the qulification "distinct from the singular" you can be quite sure that we will get people arguing that the plural form is distinct in the absolute sense of being well defined. Again, the current wording addresses this well and I am happy with it. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that, when someone says "distinct plural" it is implicitly understood to mean "distinct from the singular."

Anyway, after some reflection (and after reading through other parts of these naming conventions), I'm warmer to using "explicit disambiguation," FWIW. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your faith in the what is implicitly understood by editors amazes me, given the type of statements made about people's special intuition at Talk:Maori. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, either way, it's clear now. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not oppose restoring "explicit disambiguation" so long as the remainder of the text is retained.

At this point I think there has been enough debate and comment that the edit should shortly be made. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Would not this: "an explicitly disambiguated title based on that term is preferred for both articles" be more elegant than "a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles"? μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That would work.

What about "If a separate plural form exists in English"? The problem I'm having is that the sentence has become so convoluted that it's becoming difficult to follow. Generally, simpler is better, esp. since the idea we're conveying is pretty simple. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support adding the word separate, but am opposed to removing "(distinct from the singular name)" for the same reasons given above. While you and I think the issue is simple, experience shows that editors will argue otherwise. I do actually think that

If a separate English plural form (distinct from the singular name) exists, the article for the people may use that instead.

Would be quite good. To fix the problem of the run-on sentence, the example should be removed as a separate sentence:

For example, see the disambiguation page Russian, which links to the articles Russian language and Russians for the ethnicty, with Russian people being a redirect to the latter.

. That solves the problem of too complex a sentence.μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That still seems awkward. I reordered to what I think is a more straightforward presentation. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this wording:

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language. This is especially so when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. If an English plural form (distinct from the singular name) exists, it may be used for the article about the people, as at Russians with a redirect from Russian people. The ambiguous common name should serve as a disambiguation page: Chinese, Tswana, Russian.

Is quite excellent.

• Support pro-disambiguation. I don't have anything to add to what has already been said, though. --JorisvS (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (again) in the current form. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no-one has proposed a competing convention, and we seem happy with the wording, I'll put it in now. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-freedom

This is where drafting of the proposed changes to the naming conventions take place.

Articles should...

Rundi / Kirundi

Contested move at Talk:Kirundi. In this case there isn't a Rundi ethnic group, so we won't likely have a competing article, though sources do still speak of the Rundi people (the inhabitants of Burundi). — kwami (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee

Looks like Cherokee needs to be moved to conform to our conventions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read Trail of Tears before suggesting that Cherokee "needs to be moved" or especially acted on without consensus. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a joke with genocide as the punchline. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that a joke? You saw what happened at Maori. You will find very few articles where a move might be more controversial. I don't know your personal background or knowledge of the subject. Warning you to be sensitive to potentially highly emotionally invested editors hardly amounts to a joke. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We've all seen "The Cigar Store Indian" episode of Seinfeld where Jerry avoids using words like "reservation" and "scalper" when talking to a Native American woman. However, I think editors' sensibilities are refined enough that they'll be able to discuss a procedural issue at an encyclopedia without the matter evoking forced relocation. I think you're going overboard here on being sensitive on behalf of someone else.

Anyway, perhaps Kwami can speak to the frequency at which this sort of thing becomes contentious. It doesn't take much to put something in the talk page explaining the rationale and waiting a few days. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Maori debate was bizarre. The only others which have even come close involve an actual change in name, as below. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Amendment proposal on Bantu languages

Hi all,

I would like to propose the removal (or significant modification) of the following line, which was the result of the proposal above under the Bantu language names section:

This is especially so when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana.

This line, which appears to be aimed mostly at Bantu languages (but possibly also at Asian forms such as Bahasa Malaysia), is probably perfectly fine for the Tswana case, but is now being used as a reason to avoid common names at Kinyarwanda, Kirundi and Luganda. Unlike the Tswana language and Zulu language cases, the "borrowed" native forms Kinyarwanda, Kirundi and Luganda have taken a firm hold in English sources, from the CIA through the BBC and also including almost 100% of English speakers actually resident in those countries (see the debates at Talk:Kirundi and Talk:Kinyarwanda for reams of discussion on this). A blanket policy is therefore not appropriate in this case, and it would be sufficient to end the guideline with the Chinese people and Chinese language guideline, which would automatically apply anyway to clear cut cases such as Zulu and Tswana. Thanks, and I look forward to any comments you guys may have on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. This is not WP policy, it's a convention. It quite clearly states, "Where a common name exists [it] is preferred". Key terms here are common and preferred. That is, there could easily be overriding factors, and on the Kirundi article you are arguing on grounds of what is 'common'. I've said myself that Rundi is not a clear-cut case, and after debating it, am not sure I still want the RfM to succeed. As for the Chinese example being sufficient, it is not: people would immediately claim that "Zulu" is not equivalent to "Chinese" because it has different forms, Amazulu and Isizulu, whereas Chinese does not. And although this started off with Bantu, it applies to several other language families where the names have similar properties. If we lose this, we're back to half of the articles using prefixes and half not with little rhyme or reason. Better IMO to save the arguments for the few cases where a strong case can be made for using the prefix, than to potentially have arguments going back and forth for each article. — kwami (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken - I had not spotted the distinction between convention and policy. As I've said before, I don't object to the clause as a good rule of thumb, and if it helps multiple edit wars over the clear-cut cases then that's fine, but I want to avoid the danger that it is seen as an overriding guideline even in cases where the common name lies elsewhere, or is believed by some to lie elsewhere, (as at Kirundi/Kinyarwanda). Perhaps we could consider replacing this is especially so, which suggests a guideline overriding others, with more neutral language illustrating how the guideline is applied in the Tswana case. Perhaps:

This may also apply when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana.

? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that there might be arguments for change on many existing Bantu language articles, but I think there needs to a clearer definition of "common name". Much academic material out there on Bantu languages is based work that is at least 50 years old (the likes of Malcolm_Guthrie and Carl_Meinhof) and does not reflect how those languages are understood by English speakers today. So perhaps more weight needs to be giving to sources from the media, than encyclopedia articles. — Rowanseymour (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that in many cases there is more than one common name. Kirundi:Rundi was about 3:2 in the data collected on that page; many other cases are much closer than that. Such debates tend to devolve into arguments over which sources we should use for data, which need to be excluded, which search engines are reliable, what the numbers really mean, etc. This happens almost every time. It's a mess. Many people have tried to get a clearer def of "common name" but have failed because there are considerations pulling in other directions, such as whether we use the local or international form. I've tried getting cases like Ganges/Ganga addressed clearly and have just been frustrated.

As for "especially so" w prefixes, IMO this is reasonable. We recently diverged with Shoshone people and Shoshoni language because of common-name concerns. Those two variants are so close that readers might not even notice. But when you start getting things like Shilha and Tashelhit it gets more opaque. I think it's reasonable to prefer the non-affixed form in such cases simply for accessibility. — kwami (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I probably won't push this if you really think the current wording is very helpful, and as long as we're clear that it should not be used as a trump card when considering common usage for any individual cases.

As an aside, I do question your "accessibility" criterion, however - I'll be honest, I've never heard of either Shilha or Tashelhit, therefore it makes little difference to me (as a complete newcomer to the topic) which of the two titles the language resides at. I would also not feel unduly confused were the language to reside at Tashelhit while the people were at Shilha people if, that is, the common usage amongst English speakers in Morocco or internationally is to split them that way. As a new reader I am more interested to know how the language and people are really known rather than being given not-so-common titles merely so I get an insight into the etymology of the two words. (As I say, I have no idea onthe Shilha/Tashelhit case so am not commenting on that specifically). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rowanseymour, have you checked WP:COMMONNAME? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of wikiprojects appear to develop naming policies which diverge ever so slightly from WP:COMMONNAME and tend to favour whatever is "technically accurate" in the context of that wikiproject. (For instance, some biological articles adopt the binomial name for a species even where there is a widely used "common name" for that species). I can live with that kind of approach - this is an encyclopædia, after all, and technical accuracy is no bad thing. So, whilst we should try to use WP:COMMONNAME wherever practical, I think it's perfectly OK to look for the more technically accurate translation if WP:COMMONNAME doens't give a clear majority to any one name. Consistent naming between different articles should not be anywhere near the top of the list of priorities. bobrayner (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But these aren't technically more accurate. They're just code switching, like pronouncing Paris "puh-REE", or calling the city of Naples "Napoli". — kwami (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say that hasn't been already but I want to lend support to having exceptions to the convention for languages such as Kinyarwanda, Kirundi, or Luganda where the prefix is commonly used. This is appropriate under the present guidelines but, if something new needs to be codified, an explicit exception can be given to cases where a prefixed name is the most common English name for that language. —  AjaxSmack  17:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the caveat of common usage was already present in the wording of these conventions. This is why the debates about Kinyarwanda and Kirundi were centered around what term was most common. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So was I but the impetus for this discussion was feeling that this guideline was being used to justify usage of less common names as titles. —  AjaxSmack  19:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

naming of scripts

Although slightly tangential, there's a discussion on naming scripts here. At issue as I see it is whether we use the word "alphabet" for scripts that are familiar or prestigious, for all segmental scripts, or only for 'true' alphabets. I don't much care as long as it isn't the first (Hebrew 'alphabet' but Phoenician 'script', or Western 'alphabets' and Eastern 'scripts', etc).

Naming conventions under discussion here. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

dialects

added a brief section on dialects, and just noticed the old discussion above, which to a large extent we've been following. Please move the section here for discussion if there's anything controversial about it; AFAIK it reflects the facts on the ground. Examples might be improved. — kwami (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mossi vs Moore

There is a discussion at Talk:Mossi_language#Mossi vs Moore about the naming of this language, where the people are called 'Mossi', but the language is arguably better known as 'Moore', but Mossi is also used in English to refer to the language. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Variety"

The article ends:

Varieties can be named by appending the name of the parent language, as at Standard German and Old English. This is useful when there is disagreement as to whether a variety is an accent or a dialect, as at Estuary English, or a dialect or a separate language, as at Egyptian Arabic and Mandarin Chinese, or whether it constitutes a single dialect or several, as at Southern American English.

Old English is not a "variety" like Standard German, Estuary English, Southern American English, or Egyptian Arabic. Of the five "varieties" listed beside Old English, only Mandarin Chinese is the least bit comparable, being as different from, say, Wu varieties (of Chinese) as French is from Italian (among Romance languages). For that matter,

[The Wu] dialect family (and especially Southern Wu) is well-known among linguists and sinologists as being one of the most internally diverse among the spoken Chinese language families with very little mutual intelligibility among varieties within the family.
—Wu Chinese, emphasis added

In general, diachronic modifiers such as "Old", that serve to distinguish periods in the history of a language, should not be conflated with synchronic modifiers like "Egyptian" or "Mandarin", which distinguish varieties of a language or language family that exist at the same time, and are often the names of regions, ethnic groups, etc. This principle is supported by the first two examples in the first quotation above, which incorrectly generalizes about "appending the name of the parent language". Unlike the other modifiers (Estuary, Egyptian, Mandarin, Southern American), "Standard" and "Old" could never stand alone as glottonyms. --Thnidu (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the example and wording in that clause. The sentence now reads:

Varieties can be named by prepending a modifier to the name of the parent language, as at Standard German and African American Vernacular English. --Thnidu (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Unambiguous as a noun vs Latin

The naming guidelines say that language names that are unambiguous as a noun do not need the "language" suffix, but then the two examples are not unambiguous as nouns (see Esperanto (disambiguation) and Latin (disambiguation)). Contrast this to Rungtu, where there is no ambiguity as a title or noun on Wikipedia, but the move to the base name is controversial. I believe the naming guideline and/or its examples need to be updated to reflect the implementation on Wikipedia, which appears to be that if the language is the primary topic for its name (without the suffix), then it doesn't need the "language" suffix. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that could start a very messy debate as to whether, say, the Heiban language or Heiban people have greater coverage in the lit. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So we should move Latin to Latin language and Esperanto to Esperanto language and find some examples that are actually unambiguous, if that's the consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is that Latin and Esperanto should stay where they are. The problem is in presenting the reason for that consensus. In the case of Esperanto, all other uses are named after the language, so the language clearly has priority to the name. In the case of Latin, the language is no longer tied to the Latin people, and unlike in the cases of English, Spanish, etc, the original connection has become obscure. The vast majority of languages are named after either their ethnicity or their region, and do not have priority to the name.

I think the difficulty in explaining a reason for the consensus is that since the Latins are extinct and obscure, but the Latin language is familiar, that "Latin" should be an exception to the naming rule, and has nothing to do with cases like Esperanto or Kirundi. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is my suggestion, to get rid of the incorrect wording of the guidelines, which are obviously incorrect since they do not reflect the examples that they use. I added what the widespread consensus appears to be, but if my observation is wrong, the guidelines should still be updated to reflect whatever that consensus actually is. What you describe, however, is what I said: when the language is the primary topic ("clearly has priority"), it should be at the base name. We disagree over whether languages named after either their ethnicity or their region are primary topics when they are the only topic for their name covered on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Added a line from WP:ETHNICGROUP

For discussion I have I hope not been too WP:BOLD and added a line, in effect duplicated a line from the sister guideline at WP:ETHNICGROUP:

As with the corresponding guideline at WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification a language name which is offensive to the group speaking the language should be avoided.

I would hope that it won't be too controversial and will go some way to reassuring non-linguist editors that those working on language articles are sensitive to this part of the WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) guideline. But if it is controversial those who wish to revert and discuss please do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added "if possible", because there may be instances where the English term is considered derogatory, but no reasonable alternative is available to English. A related instance also comes to mind, Serbo-Croatian, where not so much the term, but rather the concept is considered derogatory by many natives. --JorisvS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's good. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#What the guidelines say which is related to this guideline. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

there's clearly no consensus for this either

'Nuff said. Your resistance to a mounting consensus that began with last year's St'at'imc, Ktunaxa, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc and Nlaka'pamux RMs, and has continued this year with Dakelh, Wuikinuxv, Shishalh, and the dozens of RMs moved/closer by Cuchullain, BDD, Xoloz and others is tiresome and obstinate and obstructive. That you moved all of those without consensus, and en masse, and sought to block consensus/RMs to revert them in each and every case, makes your reversion here on the basis of "no consensus" all the more ironic...though that's not quite right word is it? You are displaying WP:OWN over this passage; not surprising given you were its author and lobbyist. There is no consensus whatsoever for the notion that ethno articles must have a dab, or that languages are equally a primarytopic; there is also little in the way of citations to support that claim, which is your own, and highly OR.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"consensus" does not mean unanimity

Aside from the point that consensus cannot override POLICY like TITLE, it's also true that "consensus" does NOT mean "unanamity". In all RMs and CfDs, vote-counts are typically used by the closer, often ignoring qualitative comments/votes and counting things only numerically/quantitatively, even when they're illogical or a-factual. That's not the case here, where POLICY is invoked, and there is a stonewall underway to maintain that there is no consensus, when in fact there is a majority consensus based in POLICY and heaps of precedents, vs a "minority consensus" (of one, really, other than WilliamThweat and Cnilep, who have remained silently while the one oppose-consensus-at-all-costs editor) continues to try and confound discussion and claim consensus does not exist because he says so. Nope, that's not the way things work; but of course that's not the way they're supposed to, but wearing opposition down by an ongoing campaign of illogic and deprecation and misrepresentation of what others have said, is not just tiresome, it's becoming predictable.Skookum1 (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: CANVASS at WikiProject Languages about this discussion

Please note here May 9, 2014. Editorializing on this discussion in the course of notifying the relevant WikiProject is against guidelines; I know if I were to do that I'd be slapped down for it (and was re the Boundary Ranges CfD, in fact).Skookum1 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)