Misplaced Pages

:Naming conventions (use English-language sources): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:06, 8 June 2011 editDolovis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users51,916 edits Undid revision 432413154 by Hans Adler (talk) Undo change made while discussion is on-going← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:18, 23 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors60,357 edits →See also 
(144 intermediate revisions by 84 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Redirect|WP:USEENGLISH|the more concise policy on this (])|Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Foreign names and Anglicization|the related style guideline|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Spelling and romanization|the talk page guideline|WP:ENGLISHPLEASE|the language preference policy for cited sources|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English sources}}
{{dablink|You may be looking for ], ], or ].}}
{{Redirect|WP:EN||Misplaced Pages:EN (disambiguation)}}
{{subcat guideline|naming convention|Use English|WP:EN|WP:ENGLISH}} {{Redirect|WP:ENGLISH|WikiProject English Language|WP:ENGLANG}}{{subcat guideline|naming convention|Use English|WP:EN|WP:ENG|WP:NCUE|WP:ENGLISH}}
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Article titles}}
{{Nutshell|This is the English Misplaced Pages. Article titles should match English-language reliable sources.}}


The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in ] (for example ]). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with ]. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (], ], ]; ], ], ]). Rarely, as with ] or ], it will be completely different. The ] should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in ] (for example ]). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with ]. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (], ], ]; ], ], ]). Rarely, as with ] or ], it will be completely different.


The references for the article should themselves be reliable sources. If one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, we should probably use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of ], use that instead. If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it. Whenever something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of ], use that instead.


Names not originally in a ], as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be ] into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (''e.g.'' ] and ]) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use ''Tchaikovsky'' or ''Chiang Kai-shek'' even though those are unsystematic. Names not originally in a ], as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be ] into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g., ] and ]) are preferred. Nonetheless, if there is a common English form of the name, this is preferred over a systematically transliterated name; thus, use '']'' or '']'', even though those are unsystematic. For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see ] and ].


The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English word, or ], for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title. The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from native and other historically relevant names are encouraged. Where there is an English word or an ] for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.


==Include alternatives== ==Include alternatives==
{{shortcut|WP:UEIA}} {{shortcut|WP:UEIA}}
The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the ] article should mention that the city is also known as ], and that both names derive from the Chinese name {{lang|zh|]}}. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example {{lang|sv|]}} is a redirect to ]. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see ] for an example of this. The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin script, this representation should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the ] article should mention that the city is also known as ], and that both names derive from the Chinese name {{lang|zh|]}}. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example {{lang|sv|]}} is a redirect to ]. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms, it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see ] for an example of this.

⚫ == Divided usage ==
⚫ Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the ] in ], following official handouts. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use ''Turin''. Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

⚫ ] are an unreliable test for whether one term is more common than another, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If there are fewer than 700 hits, the ''actual'' count (gotten by paging to the final page of hits) ''may'' be accurate for Google's particular corpus of English, but whether this represents all English usage is less certain. If there are more than 700 estimated hits, the number gotten by going to the last page ''will'' be wrong; Google only loads a limited number of hits, no matter how many there are. Counts over 1000 are usually estimates, and may be seriously wrong.<ref></ref> If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 603 for one variant and 430 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to ] than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Do consult reliable works of general reference in English.

⚫ ] It is not our business to predict what term will be in use, but rather to observe what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. If ''Torino'' ousts ''Turin'', we should follow, but we should not leap to any conclusion until it does.

⚫ When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version. If it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable, defer to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a ].<ref>This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the ] which is based on ]</ref>


==Modified letters== ==Modified letters==
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Spelling and romanization|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Ligatures}}
{{anchor|Modified letters}} {{anchor|Modified letters}}
{{shortcut|WP:DIACRITICS}} {{shortcut|WP:DIACRITICS}}


The use of modified letters (such as ]) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a name which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in English ] (for example ]). In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published since 1980, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. Place ] at alternative titles, such as those with or without diacritics. Add {{tl|R from title without diacritics}} after the redirect to properly categorize it, e.g. for print editions. The use of modified letters (e.g. those with ]) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in ] that are written in the English language (including ]). The ] and on ] does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as ] by reliable sources.
In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title.
Place ] at alternative titles, such as those with or without diacritics. Add {{tl|R to diacritics}} or {{tl|R from diacritics}} below the redirect to properly categorize it, such as for print editions.


] are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of ] errors. ] are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of ] errors.


One recurrent issue has been the treatment of ] such as ] and ]. By and large, Misplaced Pages uses '']'' and '']'' to represent the Old Norse and Old English letters. For Latin or Greek-derived words, use ''e'' or ''ae''/''oe'', depending on modern usage and the ] used in the article. German proper names should be treated with care, and attention to ''English'' practice. Not all German proper names use umlauts (for example, ] is correct in both languages); English resolves umlauts where German need not: ] is standard English usage, although both forms have been found in German. One recurrent issue has been the treatment of ] such as '']'' and '']''. By and large, Misplaced Pages uses '']'' and '']'' to represent the Old Norse and Old English letters. For Latin- or Greek-derived words, use ''e'' or ''ae''/''oe'', depending on modern usage and the ] used in the article. German proper names should be treated with care and attention to {{em|English}} practice. Notice that even in German, combinations such as ''oe'' are used in some names rather than ]s (as in ] and, in modern German, ]).


Beware of over-dramatising these issues: as an example ] may be mentioned, which, as a side-effect, regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles &ndash; ''peacefully'' &ndash; before, during and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, e.g. ], not ''Inis Mór''; ], not ''Tomas O'Fiaich'' (see the mentioned MoS page for details). Beware of overdramatising these issues. As an example, ] may be mentioned, which—as a side-effect—{{em|peacefully}} regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles before, during, and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, such as ] and not {{lang|ga|Inis Mór}}, or ] and not ''Tomas O'Fiaich'' (see the aforementioned MoS page for details).


== No established usage == == Established usage in English-language sources ==
{{shortcut|WP:ESTABLISHED}}
⚫ It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts ] indicative of this. ''If'' this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.).
If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.


⚫ == Divided usage in English-language sources ==
⚫ If, as will happen, there are several competing foreign terms, a neutral one is often best. The sections "]" and "]" in ] express some ideas on resolving such problems.
{{policy shortcut|WP:DIVIDEDUSE}}
⚫ Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the "]", following official handouts; however, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world referred to it taking place in ]. In this case, we cannot determine which is "most common". Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

⚫ ] are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If there are fewer than 700 hits,<ref name="GoogleHitCounts">{{Cite web|url=http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1943|title=Climategate, Tiger, and Google hit counts: dropping the other shoe|last=Nunberg|first=Geoff|author-link=Geoffrey Nunberg|date=7 December 2009|department=Language and politics|website=]|location=]|publisher=]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619060512/http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1943|archive-date=19 June 2018|url-status=live|access-date=19 June 2018|quote=When Google reports hit count estimates over a few hundred, the results should never be taken at face value, or any value at all—they're not only too inaccurate for serious research, but demonstrably flaky.&nbsp; In these cases we can assume that Google has tried to return all the pages in its index that contain the search string. (A figure between 700 and 1000 might be an accurate count, but might also be Google's effort to return around 1000 pages for a term that appears on thousands or millions of web pages.)}}</ref> the {{em|actual}} count (from the final page of hits) {{em|may}} be accurate for the engine's particular corpus of English, but whether this represents all English usage is less certain. If there are more than 700 estimated hits, the number from the last page {{em|will}} be wrong; a search engine loads only a limited number of hits, no matter how many there are.<ref name="GoogleHitCounts" /> Counts over 1,000 are usually estimates, and may be extremely inaccurate.<ref name="GoogleHitCounts" /> If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 603 for one variant and 430 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to ] than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Also, consult reliable works of general reference in English.

⚫ ] It is not our business to predict what term will be in use, but rather to observe what is and has been in use and will therefore be familiar to our readers. If ''Torino'' ousts ''Turin'', we should follow, but we should not leap to any conclusion until it does.

⚫ When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version. If it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable, defer to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a ].{{efn|This paragraph was adopted to stop ]. It is an adaptation of the wording in the ], which is based on ].}}

== No established usage in English-language sources ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:DONTUSEENGLISH|WP:USENATIVE}}
⚫ It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts ] indicative of this. {{em|If}} this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (] for ], ] for ], ] for ] etc.).

⚫ If, as will happen, there are several competing foreign terms, a neutral one is often best. ] and ] express some ideas on resolving such problems.


== See also == == See also ==
*]. More on use of alternate names, and of contemporary names and transliterations. Some advice may be applicable to non-geographic names. *{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Proper names}} – guideline for proper names, e.g. place names and personal names
*] – specific rules for Western royalty and nobility. *] – more on place names, including the use of alternate names, contemporary names and transliterations, with some advice potentially applicable to non-geographic names
*] – specific rules for Western royalty and nobility
*] – an overview of the conventions for transliterating various languages into the Latin alphabet. *] – conventions for how to transliterate languages not written in the Latin alphabet
*] – guidelines for writing about particular places or cultures
*] – encyclopedic writing is semi-formal but contemporary; avoid old-fashioned wording and style.
*] – essay on using everyday English, and not obscurantist, jargon-festooned, or otherwise obtuse, omphaloskeptic verbiage (like this)


==Notes== ==Notes==
{{reflist}} {{notelist}}


==References==
]
{{reflist}}

]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 03:18, 23 December 2024

"WP:USEENGLISH" redirects here. For the more concise policy on this (WP:UE), see Misplaced Pages:Article titles § Foreign names and Anglicization. For the related style guideline, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § Spelling and romanization. For the talk page guideline, see WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. For the language preference policy for cited sources, see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Non-English sources. "WP:EN" redirects here. For other uses, see Misplaced Pages:EN (disambiguation). "WP:ENGLISH" redirects here. For WikiProject English Language, see WP:ENGLANG.
Blue tickThis guideline documents an English Misplaced Pages naming convention.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: This is the English Misplaced Pages. Article titles should match English-language reliable sources.

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different.

If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it. Whenever something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead.

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g., Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, if there is a common English form of the name, this is preferred over a systematically transliterated name; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek, even though those are unsystematic. For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Misplaced Pages:Romanization and Category:Misplaced Pages Manual of Style (regional).

The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from native and other historically relevant names are encouraged. Where there is an English word or an exonym for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.

Include alternatives

Shortcut

The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin script, this representation should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example Sverige is a redirect to Sweden. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms, it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this.

Modified letters

See also: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § Spelling and romanization, and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § Ligatures

Shortcut

The use of modified letters (e.g. those with accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). 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.

In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title.

Place redirects at alternative titles, such as those with or without diacritics. Add {{R to diacritics}} or {{R from diacritics}} below the redirect to properly categorize it, such as for print editions.

Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors.

One recurrent issue has been the treatment of graphemes such as ae and oe. By and large, Misplaced Pages uses œ and æ to represent the Old Norse and Old English letters. For Latin- or Greek-derived words, use e or ae/oe, depending on modern usage and the national variety of English used in the article. German proper names should be treated with care and attention to English practice. Notice that even in German, combinations such as oe are used in some names rather than umlauts (as in Emmy Noether and, in modern German, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe).

Beware of overdramatising these issues. As an example, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles may be mentioned, which—as a side-effect—peacefully regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles before, during, and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, such as Inishmore and not Inis Mór, or Tomás Ó Fiaich and not Tomas O'Fiaich (see the aforementioned MoS page for details).

Established usage in English-language sources

Shortcut

If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.

Divided usage in English-language sources

Shortcut

Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the "Olympics in Torino", following official handouts; however, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world referred to it taking place in Turin. In this case, we cannot determine which is "most common". Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If there are fewer than 700 hits, the actual count (from the final page of hits) may be accurate for the engine's particular corpus of English, but whether this represents all English usage is less certain. If there are more than 700 estimated hits, the number from the last page will be wrong; a search engine loads only a limited number of hits, no matter how many there are. Counts over 1,000 are usually estimates, and may be extremely inaccurate. If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 603 for one variant and 430 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to verifiable reliable sources than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Also, consult reliable works of general reference in English.

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. It is not our business to predict what term will be in use, but rather to observe what is and has been in use and will therefore be familiar to our readers. If Torino ousts Turin, we should follow, but we should not leap to any conclusion until it does.

When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version. If it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable, defer to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

No established usage in English-language sources

Shortcuts

It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian municipalities etc.).

If, as will happen, there are several competing foreign terms, a neutral one is often best. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Multiple local names and § Use modern names express some ideas on resolving such problems.

See also

Notes

  1. This paragraph was adopted to stop page-move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style, which is based on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.

References

  1. ^ Nunberg, Geoff (7 December 2009). "Climategate, Tiger, and Google hit counts: dropping the other shoe". Language and politics. Language Log. University of Pennsylvania: Linguistic Data Consortium. Archived from the original on 19 June 2018. Retrieved 19 June 2018. When Google reports hit count estimates over a few hundred, the results should never be taken at face value, or any value at all—they're not only too inaccurate for serious research, but demonstrably flaky.  In these cases we can assume that Google has tried to return all the pages in its index that contain the search string. (A figure between 700 and 1000 might be an accurate count, but might also be Google's effort to return around 1000 pages for a term that appears on thousands or millions of web pages.)
Category: