![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've seen arguments that e.g. Ganges should be moved to Ganga because the latter in the form in Indian English. (Also that there are more Indian English speakers than US or UK speakers, so Indian English usage should take precedence per WP:COMMONNAME.) This page does not, so far as I can see, discuss whether local or international English should prevail. I've asked for clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Using_local_terms_for_local_phenomena; please join the discussion there. — kwami ( talk) 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion to move Senkaku Islands to Pinnacle Islands. An interesting interpretation of Naming conventions is discussed there. Please participate in the discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 04:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this edit, which says that we "should not necessarily" follow the local variety of English under certain circumstances is unwise.
Should not necessarily is not grammatical. It does not mean "should not"; it doesn't mean anything.
And we don't mean "should not": the use of should in policies is generally a shorthand; policy pages aren't prescriptive, they are descriptions of what the wider consensus (which is policy) actually does. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. (There is - or ought to be - consensus that NPOV or NOR is an ethical requirement, but article titles are a matter of convenience.)
In this case, "should not" is an inaccurate description; we title the page on the river Ganges, because the consensus of the rest of English is strong, and Indian English is divided; but we title the Indian city Mumbai, because Indian English has a strong consensus, and the rest of English has joined it. What we do in intermediate cases (which "should not" would declare) is undecided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nick Thorne talk 15:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Should there be multiple levels of geographic disambiguation? Let's use a hypothetical Someplace. which refers to a disambiguation page. Should there be a Someplace, United States dab page for places with that name in the United Sates, and/or Someplace, New York dab page for places with that name in New York.
This occurs in a practical sense when a village, town, township, city, county, etc. bear identical names, or where Someplace is qualified by a compass direction, preceding descriptor "New", "Old", "Central", "Port", etc. or a following term like "Beach", "Park", "Terrace", "Gardens", etc. patsw ( talk) 12:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)