This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Native names
I am wondering if there is any established convention as to whether saints’ native names or anglicised versions should be used, both as the title and within the article. I understand that the name with established use in English language sources should be used, but in such areas where a saint has little English-language coverage, what is the protocol. For example, I recently created the page for the Italian Saint John of Tufara, having translated the name. However, as very few English-language sources reference him and almost every source is in Italian, is it better to use his native name of Giovanni. If so, should this be Giovanni of Tufara or Giovanni da Tufara? Clarification would be very greatly appreciated! Many thanks, Vesuvio14 (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is quite difficult whenever we are forced to invent an English name for an article which has none in reliable sources. As a rule of thumb, I think it is better to translate when many of the following criteria apply: 1) a decent amount of meaning can be inferred from the individual words; 2) it is easy to translate the original title literally; 3) the translation sounds like a plausible thing to say in English; 4) the original name is difficult to pronounce or spell for English speakers; 5) if applicable, similar subjects are almost uniformly translated. And it is better to keep the original name when the reverse is true. For Pseudo-Chinese, I have decided to translate the title, because the translation gives the reader some sense of what the title is about and is easier to say. Another factor in this case was having to choose one Romanization system over the other if going with the original title, since original Chinese-character names are not allowed in English Wikipedia articles. Now there are more sources calling it "pseudo-Chinese" in English, but I suspect this may be citogenesis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠00:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying definition of English name?
In quite a few move requests where the proposal is to move to a name with non-English origins, I've noticed people citing this policy (or WP:UE) as justification to oppose the move, even if the proposed name is demonstrably the most common used in English sources. As I understand it, this guideline talks simply about which name English sources use, and has no prejudice on the origins of said name - hence using Uluru over Ayers Rock, or Denali over Mount McKinley. I'm wondering whether it would be worth having something within the guideline to spell this out, as it seems the current wording has been misconstrued reasonably often? Turnagra (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. This naming convention, in a nutshell: "This is the English Wikipedia. Article titles should be written in English." Current title is accurate. 162 etc. (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That nutshell doesn't follow the text itself, the first sentence of which says: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)." ꧁Zanahary꧂17:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this needs to be moved, I would rather rename it to Naming conventions (use English-language sources). That is the term commonly used on most Wikipedia policies and guidelines to disambig that from sources originally published in England. Otherwise, like 162 etc.'s comment, the status quo seems sufficient: the name most commonly used in English-language sources is essentially the English name, including any loanword assimilated from one language into English. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with the change suggested by Zzyzx11). This is one of the most frequently misunderstood parts of PAG. I often see it used to oppose a clear WP:COMMONNAME because the proposed title, although the most common name in English, isn't from English (eg. preferring "Ayers Rock" over Uluru and using WP:USEENGLISH as the rationale). Amending the title to specify that it should be the name as used in English-language sources would partially help to alleviate this confusion, and would better match the wording of the guideline. Turnagra (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Graphemes
I think the wording might be backwards. The string "ae and oe" contains 7 graphemes, not 5, whereas "œ and æ" contains 5. It also seems to contradict MOS:CONFORM which says "Normalize archaic glyphs and ligatures in English ... æ→ae, œ→oe". 216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A grapheme is a basic functional unit of writing. There is actually some disagreement among scholars of grapholinguistics over where to draw the line, but suffice it to say I understand the plurality position is represented here. That is to say, the glyphs|æ| and |ae| can both represent the grapheme ⟨æ⟩ in situations where distinct from the digraph ⟨a⟩ followed by ⟨e⟩. |æ| is simply the combined ligature form that is often preferred for clarity, but the digraph still functions as the grapheme ⟨æ⟩. As ⟨æ⟩ is not "its own letter" in Modern English, this usually isn't the case. Remsense ‥ 论02:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two passages should be rearticulated for clarity, but I understand it as saying that should normalize typographic ligatures, but not ones that represent graphemic distinctions in the writing system used. Meaning, ⟨æ⟩ was its own letter in the Old English Latin alphabet, so it should not be normalized. However, |æ| is not its own letter in the Modern English word encyclopædia, so it should be normalized. Remsense ‥ 论02:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My idea of "glyph" is that one glyph means one slot in a font file. In this font-variant-ligatures: normal example, |fi| (1683) and |fl| (1684) are glyphs (on that page, not here), but with no-common-ligatures, I see |f| (71) + |i| (74) and |f| + |l| (77). These two coincidentally have Unicode codepoints, but "<|" in JetBrains Mono is a glyph that doesn't. In the above comment, I understand the glyph |æ|, but |ae| confuses me because it appears to be 2 separate glyphs.
But this talk page is for WP:NCUE, which doesn't use "glyph". Here "grapheme" is used. The relevant grapheme cluster concept is basically the smallest mouse-selectable thing. Each grapheme cluster contains at least one grapheme. Since I can select the "a" and "e" of "ae" individually, there must be 2 grapheme clusters so at least 2 graphemes. Therefore, "ae" is not an individual grapheme, while "æ" is.
This is why "graphemes such as ae and oe. By and large, Wikipedia uses œ and æ to represent the Old Norse" sounds wrong. It should be something like "graphemes such as the ligatures for ae and oe" or "graphemes such as æ and œ (modern oe and ae)". 216.58.25.209 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't meant to be glib, it's the crux of the entire issue: what makes one form wrong and another right? How are we meant to have a process as non-experts that doesn't defer to our sources? Moreover, what is the justification for generally deferment to our sources for everything other than orthography?
If your argument is we should examine the entire body of RS, not just English-language RS—some pretty unhelpful conclusions arise almost immediately. Orthography is the domain where the argument to discriminate by language can be made, as that's the sole matter on which different language sources can never be made commensurate, by definition. Not to be melodramatic, but this would seem to jeopardize the notion of orthography in general. That seems vital to getting anything done around here ever. Remsense ‥ 论22:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. English is English is English. The common usage in English is what the average English reader is going to expect, whether it is "right" or "wrong" in the native language. To see Deutschland for Germany would be just wrong. Masterhatch (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
