[WikiEN-l] Anglicization convention

[Daniel Mayer]

Eclecticology wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>BTW our current primary naming convention is to use what most 
>>English speakers would know and recognize as article titles with a 
>>reasonable minimum of ambiguity and do any usage explanation in 
>>the article itself.
>>
>Emperor "Franz Josef" of Austria: 203,000 Google hits; "Francis Joseph": 
>24,500 Google hits yet we persist in using Francis Joseph pretending 
>that it is most recognizable by English speakers
>
>Eclecticology

Doing a vanilla Google search is useless because it also searches non-English 
pages. But I did redo the search only looking at English language pages and I 
confirmed you results.

So what is the problem then? I'm not insisting that we should have an article 
at [[Francis Joseph of Austria]]. In this case the article, per the 
Anglicization and Names and Titles conventions, should be at [[Franz Josef of 
Austria]]. 

I think the much of the problem that many people have about the Anglicization 
convention is that they HAVEN'T READ THE DAMN THING IN CONTEXT WITH THE 
OVERRIDING CONVENTION EXPRESSED IN THE GENERAL STATEMENT. Please do so now;

Anglicization convention:

   Convention: Name your pages in English and place the 
   native transliteration on the first line of the article 
   unless the native form is almost always used in English.

Notice: "...unless the native form is almost always used in English."

I am all for making that sound even more permissive (and a better reflection 
of the current practice I understand and help enforce) to read;

"... unless the native form or transliteration is used by English speakers 
more often than the Anglicized or English translation."

General statement: 

   Generally, article naming should give priority to what the 
   majority of English speakers would most easily recognize 
   with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same 
   time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. 

Notice: "....article naming should give priority to what the majority of 
English speakers would most easily recognize..."

I am also all for making this even more clear to reflect my longstanding 
interpretation and enforcement criteria:
"....article naming should give priority to what the majority of English 
speakers at all familiar with the subject would most easily recognize and 
likely to use...."

Notice the addition of: "at all familiar with the subject" (this includes all 
interested English speaking parties, not just the experts).

We should use what most English speakers who are aware of the subject would 
most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (with at least a 
slight preference for English to decide toss-ups). Whether or not that is an 
English translation, a transliteration, native form or is Anglicized is 
really immaterial. 

Like I already said in a previous post, subjects like Mein Kampf, Les 
Miserables and Sinn Fein should be at these titles because few people would 
recognize "My Struggle", "Poor Wretches" or "Ourselves Alone" as the correct 
subjects.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) 

Payment for this post:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_the_Kid (In progress)