Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English-language sources) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English-language_sources)

On 1 December 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources). The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12

Anglicization

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Requested move 1 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) → Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources) – "Use English" implies that the general convention is to use the English names for things, when in fact this guideline says that the name most commonly used in English-language sources (that is, not necessarily an English name) should be used. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This naming convention, in a nutshell: "This is the English Wikipedia. Article titles should be written in English." Current title is accurate. 162 etc. (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That nutshell doesn't follow the text itself, the first sentence of which says: "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)." ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this needs to be moved, I would rather rename it to Naming conventions (use English-language sources). That is the term commonly used on most Wikipedia policies and guidelines to disambig that from sources originally published in England. Otherwise, like 162 etc.'s comment, the status quo seems sufficient: the name most commonly used in English-language sources is essentially the English name, including any loanword assimilated from one language into English. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Can I change the nomination? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to edit the original request, I'm unsure on whether it will properly sync with the main RM page though. Turnagra (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of works cannot be considered loan words; the title of Mein Kampf cannot be said to be in English, yet it matches English-language sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with the change suggested by Zzyzx11). This is one of the most frequently misunderstood parts of PAG. I often see it used to oppose a clear WP:COMMONNAME because the proposed title, although the most common name in English, isn't from English (eg. preferring "Ayers Rock" over Uluru and using WP:USEENGLISH as the rationale). Amending the title to specify that it should be the name as used in English-language sources would partially help to alleviate this confusion, and would better match the wording of the guideline. Turnagra (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Graphemes

I think the wording might be backwards. The string "ae and oe" contains 7 graphemes, not 5, whereas "œ and æ" contains 5. It also seems to contradict MOS:CONFORM which says "Normalize archaic glyphs and ligatures in English ... æ→ae, œ→oe". 216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A grapheme is a basic functional unit of writing. There is actually some disagreement among scholars of grapholinguistics over where to draw the line, but suffice it to say I understand the plurality position is represented here. That is to say, the glyphs |æ| and |ae| can both represent the grapheme ⟨æ⟩ in situations where distinct from the digraph ⟨a⟩ followed by ⟨e⟩. |æ| is simply the combined ligature form that is often preferred for clarity, but the digraph still functions as the grapheme ⟨æ⟩. As ⟨æ⟩ is not "its own letter" in Modern English, this usually isn't the case. Remsense ‥ 论 02:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two passages should be rearticulated for clarity, but I understand it as saying that should normalize typographic ligatures, but not ones that represent graphemic distinctions in the writing system used. Meaning, ⟨æ⟩ was its own letter in the Old English Latin alphabet, so it should not be normalized. However, |æ| is not its own letter in the Modern English word encyclopædia, so it should be normalized. Remsense ‥ 论 02:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the distinction is with "archaic glyphs" vs "Old English". I'll edit to emphasize this difference. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both seem to agree that <æ> is a grapheme.

My idea of "glyph" is that one glyph means one slot in a font file. In this font-variant-ligatures: normal example, |fi| (1683) and |fl| (1684) are glyphs (on that page, not here), but with no-common-ligatures, I see |f| (71) + |i| (74) and |f| + |l| (77). These two coincidentally have Unicode codepoints, but "<|" in JetBrains Mono is a glyph that doesn't. In the above comment, I understand the glyph |æ|, but |ae| confuses me because it appears to be 2 separate glyphs.

But this talk page is for WP:NCUE, which doesn't use "glyph". Here "grapheme" is used. The relevant grapheme cluster concept is basically the smallest mouse-selectable thing. Each grapheme cluster contains at least one grapheme. Since I can select the "a" and "e" of "ae" individually, there must be 2 grapheme clusters so at least 2 graphemes. Therefore, "ae" is not an individual grapheme, while "æ" is.

This is why "graphemes such as ae and oe. By and large, Wikipedia uses œ and æ to represent the Old Norse" sounds wrong. It should be something like "graphemes such as the ligatures for ae and oe" or "graphemes such as æ and œ (modern oe and ae)". 216.58.25.209 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider this entire convention

This naming convention is just an excuse to be wrong about an article's name. Just because "reliable sources" type a name wrong doesn't mean it's the right name. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't meant to be glib, it's the crux of the entire issue: what makes one form wrong and another right? How are we meant to have a process as non-experts that doesn't defer to our sources? Moreover, what is the justification for generally deferment to our sources for everything other than orthography?

If your argument is we should examine the entire body of RS, not just English-language RS—some pretty unhelpful conclusions arise almost immediately. Orthography is the domain where the argument to discriminate by language can be made, as that's the sole matter on which different language sources can never be made commensurate, by definition. Not to be melodramatic, but this would seem to jeopardize the notion of orthography in general. That seems vital to getting anything done around here ever. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about we consider sources in a subject's native language instead of blindly following English-language sources? That would be a good start. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. English is English is English. The common usage in English is what the average English reader is going to expect, whether it is "right" or "wrong" in the native language. To see Deutschland for Germany would be just wrong. Masterhatch (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS needs to be applied to this page

In the section WP:DIACRITICS, the first two paragraphs contain two different spellings of the word "Encyclopedia". I'll let the people who are actively participating in the MOS wars sort it out, but someone ought to deal with the inconsistency within the guideline. Horologium (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]