They follow their own MoS. We follow ours. Ours is not business based but based exclusively on the most common name principle.
Well, not exclusively. There are quite a few subject areas where Wikipedia quite explicitly spells out that something other than the "most common name" is the naming convention in that particular case.
Television and radio stations in North America, for example, are required by policy to be titled by their official W---, K---, C--- or X---- callsigns, even though a strict application of "most common name" would require that they be titled with things like "Fox 25", "CTV Toronto" or "The Beat 94.5".
It's quite common to disambiguate people with the same first name and last name by adding a middle name to the title even if that middle name isn't in particularly common use. (And it would be impossible or excessively confusing, in some cases, to use another point of disambiguation -- frex, there's been more than one Canadian politician named Angus Macdonald, so the typical dab format, "Angus Macdonald (Canadian politician)", would *still* have to be a dab page.)
It's patently obvious that in general day-to-day use, Laura Schlessinger and Phil McGraw are *vastly* more commonly referred to to as "Dr. Laura" and "Dr. Phil" than by their full names, and yet their articles are located at their full names.
We use Inuit rather than Eskimo, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints rather than Mormon Church, on the stated grounds that "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive".
And a very real case could be made that in day-to-day English conversational usage, "Holland" is still technically a more common name for the country than "the Netherlands", but for obvious reasons nobody who valued their reputation as a Wikipedia editor would even *think* of suggesting anything other than "the Netherlands" as that article's title.
And on and so forth. Most common name is not an inviolable rule; it's a *guideline*, and one which is already *not* regarded as the final word in every single situation.
There are already a *lot* of circumstances in which other considerations trump "most common name", so can we *please* stop pretending that "Côte d'Ivoire" somehow represents some unprecedented blasphemy against Wikipedia's Great Unbreakable Commandment?
Craig
Craig Schiller craigbear@gmail.com wrote: And a very real case could be made that in day-to-day English conversational usage, "Holland" is still technically a more common name for the country than "the Netherlands", but for obvious reasons nobody who valued their reputation as a Wikipedia editor would even *think* of suggesting anything other than "the Netherlands" as that article's title.
That is not remotely comparable. Holland is NOT the name of the country. The name is the Netherlands. The comparable example would be whether Wikipedia should use 'The Netherlands' or its Dutch translation as the name of the article, with Dutch speakers queuing up to say "well that is the only name we ever hear it being called, so use the Dutch version.
Cote d'Ivoire and Ivory Coast are just translations of each other. They are not different names, like Holland and the Netherlands. If the Ivorian government had introduced a whole new name, and not merely a translation then there would be no problem. But (as they are entitled to do) they have chosen to use one linguistic variant on the name as the exclusive form to use. They have also (as they are not entitled to do) ordered the world to use their name in French. Our rule is simple. Use the most common name that is widely used by English speakers, once it is correct. By a difference worldwide of over 60% English speakers translate the name of the country into English. Under our MoS rules therefore it is the English translation that should be used, just as on Italian Wikipedia it would be the name generally used by Italian speakers worldwide, on Russian Wikipedia it would be the name used by Russian speakers. French speakers can no more demand that Wikipedia use a French name when English speakers generally don't than English speakers can demand that French speakers use an English name when French speakers generally don't. It is a black and white case. It is patiently obvious.
All encyclopædias to ensure co-ordination in house styles follow their own MoS. They may use different criteria in their own MoS to decide what to use, but whatever criteria they use they follow. On Wikipedia you seem to think we can make it up as we go along, and then wonder why we would earn for ourselves the laughter of other encyclopædias and readers. Why would they trust us when WE seem to think facts can be decided by means of a vote, not objectively set, neutrally applied criteria.
If WP wants to be taken seriously as a credible sourcebook then it has got to apply credible, objective uniform standards, not make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules that change depending on who votes what way on individual pages that act like semi-independent republics in what they decide.
Thom
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
On 11/20/05, Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
If WP wants to be taken seriously as a credible sourcebook then it has got to apply credible, objective uniform standards, not make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules that change depending on who votes what way on individual pages that act like semi-independent republics in what they decide.
I think "edit this page" was a pretty bad place to start for establishing ourselves as a credible sourcebook. Do you seriously, seriously think someone would be put off Wikipedia because its article is entitled Côte d'Ivoire?
Get real.
-- Sam