Wikipedia talk:Article titles/COMMONNAME sandbox: Difference between revisions
Space simian (talk | contribs) →Propose wording 5 - makes it more explicit under what circumstances we choose a less common name: instead of redmen right? |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Add the following phrase to WP:COMMONNAME: |
Add the following phrase to WP:COMMONNAME: |
||
<blockquote>If a person changes their name, and both the old name and the new name |
<blockquote>If a person changes their name, and both the old name and the new name are fairly common, the new name is preferred even if it is less frequently used.</blockquote> |
||
==Proposed wording 4 - clarifies existing policy w/o major changes== |
==Proposed wording 4 - clarifies existing policy w/o major changes== |
||
Revision as of 21:54, 5 September 2013
Feel free to edit any of this as you see fit. It's a sandbox, no one "owns" the proposals.
Current wording
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
Proposed wording 1 - specify what types of names would be problematic
When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and one of those names has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:
- Former personal names, when the subject has stated a preference for a new name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
- Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams that have had their names officially changed by their owners (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
- Names that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)
Proposed wording 2 - point the reader in the direction of where to find problems
When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems (see the other sections of this page and the specific naming conventions for examples of such problems), it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
Proposed wording 3 - special case for personal name changes
Add the following phrase to WP:COMMONNAME:
If a person changes their name, and both the old name and the new name are fairly common, the new name is preferred even if it is less frequently used.
Proposed wording 4 - clarifies existing policy w/o major changes
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them commonly reported in reliable sources, and the most frequently reported name creates issues with other policies, it is may be reasonable to choose one of the other names.
Propose wording 5 - makes it more explicit under what circumstances we choose a less common name
When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and one of those names has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the other names, even if it is not the most common. Examples of names that have problems include:
- Cases where the subject has stated a clear preference to use a different name (for example, Muhammad Ali instead of Cassius Clay, Yusuf Islam instead of Cat Stevens, or Chaz Bono instead of Chastity Bono)
- Cases where a government has stated a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast, Myanmar instead of Burma)
- Cases where representatives of an ethnic group have stated a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Utari instead of Ainu or Sḵwx̱wú7mesh instead of Squamish people)
- Cases where entities such as buildings and sports teams that have had their names officially changed by their owners (for example, St. John's Red Storm instead of St. John's Redmen or Sun Life Stadium instead of Joe Robbie Stadium)