Wikipedia:Official names: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 22 January 2008

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

This page in a nutshell: In English Wikipedia, common names are generally preferred to official names as article names. There are few exceptions; These are documented in the subpages of Wikipedia naming conventions.

New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct name for the article, and that if the article is under another name then it should be moved. In nearly all cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.

Wikipedia article naming conventions reads in part:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number 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.

In many cases, this will of course also be the official name where one exists. But in many other cases, it is not.

Purpose of this guideline

This guideline summarises material from the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the official Wikipedia policy on article names, and other policies and guidelines.

It is particularly intended for new editors, who cannot be expected to have read all the policies and guidelines, and indeed are encouraged to be bold and edit without needing to do so.

It should contain nothing that has not been agreed and documented in policies and other guidelines. However it should be entirely consistent with these.

Valid use of official names

Official English names are candidates for what to call the article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used.

Official names used only in other languages often have no relevance at all. English usage overrides usage in other languages, so foreign languages would only become relevant if the topic had never been described or discussed in English prior to the writing of the Wikipedia article.

There are a few subject areas in which the most common names for the articles are usually ambiguous. (For example, both Henry IV of England and Henry IV of France are commonly called Henry IV.) In such cases, a systematic use of unambiguous but predictable names has been encouraged. Even these minor deviations from the use of common names should be done carefully and with limited scope, to avoid controversy.

Rationale

The preference for common names reflects the general trend away from linguistic prescription that has been prominent since the mid twentieth century.

This also avoids several problems with preferring official names:

Obscurity. Some official names are never used except in legal documents and for theatrical effect.

Competing authorities. In some cases, an article subject may have several competing names, all of them in some sense official.

Changes to names. Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current.

Some types of article suffer more from each of these problems than others. Geographical names rarely suffer from frequent changes, but may suffer from several competing authorities, particularly in disputed and/or historically significant territories. Official names of unreleased games may change several times within a week, but there is only one authority, the vendor.

Where there is an official name that is not the article title

Where an undisputed official name exists:

It should always be given early in the article introduction. It should be bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicised. See Wikipedia:Lead section.

If the official name differs from the article name, then there should be a redirect from the official name to the article. See Wikipedia:Redirect.

Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly treated in the article introduction in most cases. But if there are many of these, or if they are relatively obscure, it may not be good to have them in the introduction. In this case:

The alternative name should be mentioned early (normally in the first sentence) in an appropriate section of the article.

The redirect should point to this section.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Official English names are candidates for what to call the article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used.
-Official names used only in other languages have no relevance at all.
+Official names used only in other languages often have no relevance at all. [[WP:UE|English usage]] overrides usage in other languages, so foreign languages would only become relevant if the topic had never been described or discussed in English prior to the writing of the Wikipedia article.
 There are a few subject areas in which the most common names for the articles are usually ambiguous. (For example, both [[Henry IV of England]] and [[Henry IV of France]] are commonly called '''Henry IV'''.) In such cases, a systematic use of unambiguous but predictable names has been encouraged. Even these minor deviations from the use of common names should be done carefully and with limited scope, to avoid controversy.