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