[WikiEN-l] Re: This whole Lir and Americanization thing

[Daniel Mayer]

On Saturday 23 November 2002 12:39 pm, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>....
> Some while back, those of us most interested and most  learned in these
> things worked together to come up with a nomenclature policy.  We agreed
> that it made the most sense to use the most common English-language
> version of a name (different forms of English notwithstanding) for the
> title BUT, because we all felt it very important to let people know that
> other cultures and language-speakers had different names for the same
> thing, so we listed alternate names in the article itself.   This means
> that English-speakers, arguably the largest audience, could search for
> articles in the way most natural to them, but the articles would still
> appear in searches by speakers of other languages searching in those
> languages.  I can't see that Lir's political beliefs are valid reasons
> to change this policy
>....

I is wonderful to hear from you again Julie. :-) I also most wholeheartedly 
agree with your entire message, especially the above text about our central 
naming convention. What is most commonly known and used by English speakers 
is the foundation for all our naming conventions and the current attack 
against Anglicization would seriously undermine that foundation and lead to 
confusion and more work. 

In fact Anglicization is really a red herring and not at all needed when we 
already have "what is most commonly used by English speakers." I suggest we 
merge Anglicization with common English useage because the name of the 
convention itself may give the incorrect impression that we /prefer/ 
Anglicization and translation even in cases where the native form is more 
widely used by modern English speakers than an Anglicized or translated 
version. But we should also be careful to not make-up our own Anglicized 
terms for subjects that are not widely known and used by English speakers and  
don't have widely recognized English language forms. This is where our 
central naming convention breaks down and we are left with the confusing 
choice of alternate native transliterations.  

So long as Mein Kampf, Les Miserables, Charlemagne etc are used and recognized 
by a majority of English speakers then by all means lets use them so long as 
POV or naming conflicts don't get in the way (We can't use Charles the Great 
because that is a POV title). What is most widely known and used by English 
speakers is all that really matters. Secondary spellings, translations, 
transliterations, native forms or Anglicizations should be redirected (at 
least eventually) to what most English speakers would recognize and expect. 
The article itself should eventually explain just when and where the other 
forms are used (but Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary, so these 
explanations need to be brief in most cases). 

If we don't stick with most common usage by English speakers then our naming 
conventions would be confusing mess that will lead to needlessly complex and 
foreign names. That isn't at all useful to either readers or writers.       

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)