Good idea. I agree completely.
M Carling
On 9 Feb 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
I think we need to change our naming convention to use the more correct article title if everybody who knows the history of the term in question agrees that it is correct; that is, if everybody who has a coherent POV on the matter shares the same opinion. In other words, we should use academically correct titles, not those which Google prefers.
Examples:
- Ockham's Razor should not reside at Occam's Razor (Occam is the
latinization of the town name Ockham; the town still exists today).
- Pennsylvania Dutch should be at Pennsylvania German (it is not Dutch at
all; the word is merely a corruption of "Deutsch" or "D�tsch").
As I wrote on [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch]]:
Regarding the title, I agree this should be under Pennsylvania German. This is a case where a redirect makes perfect sense. I support anglicized article titles, but I do not support using an obviously inccorect title because it is more popular among the uninformed. It is not POV for us to assert that "Pennsylvania German" is correct if there's nobody who disagrees, based on factual arguments and not mere habit, with that statement. This "Dutch" has nothing to do with Dutch.
[...]
Linkability is not an argument: People are already linking to this article using [[Pennsylvania German|Pennsylvania Dutch]], because obviously they do not want to use the corrupt form. Searchability is neither, since redirects show up in searches. Google-ability is only slightly reduced, since "Pennsylvania Dutch" would still be mentioned in the article body. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l