Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 10 May 2014

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1 (2002–August 2004) Archive 2 (August 2004)

Proposed addition

Misplaced Pages practice is to pluralize articles on language families. This practice is already covered at some places in our naming conventions; for example, language families are mentioned as a common exception to the rule at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (plurals). The rationale is that this is a case in which the term is always in a plural form in English. Anyone ever heard about 'the African language' or 'the Indo-European language'? I propose to be clear about this and to add the following to this convention:

Language families and groups of languages are pluralized. Thus, Niger-Congo languages rather than 'Niger-Congo language', and Sino-Tibetan languages rather than 'Sino-Tibetan language'. In most cases, a redirect from the singular to the plural title is not needed, as normal English usage of the term is always plural. There are even cases where a redirect would be incorrect; compare Kalenjin languages and Kalenjin language.

Any thoughts? Improved wordings? Additions? — mark ✎ 30 June 2005 12:08 (UTC)

This seems like good common sense, Mark. Sino-Tibetan language makes sense in English if we understand language as refering to means of communication. However, our usual understanding is that a language is one particular form of such communication, and, thus, languages makes more sense. Setting up redirects from the singular to the plural form as we go our wiki-way is useful in preventing someone reinventing a page, broken links and new-page vandalism. It's good you've spotted the, albeit rare, occassion when the name of a language group is the same as that of one language. I wonder if there are any exceptions to this rule: when languages isn't appropriate. I can't think of any. Good stuff. --Gareth Hughes 30 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)

I think the issue isn't so much "XX languages"/"XX language" but rather "XX languages"/"XX language family". The latter isn't used at all, but I do think it's an issue of sorts. However, it wouldn't work well for "Palaeo-Siberian languages" -> "Palaeo-Siberian language family"... ---Node 30 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

"XXX language family" just looks cumbersome and forced to me. The plural seems to be the most logical and practical to me.

Peter July 1, 2005 09:57 (UTC)

I can understand that in certain circumstances it may be preferable to use the title X language family, but this takes us onto the rocky ground of language classification. The words family, sub-family, group and sub-group are variously used to indicate a hierarchy of classification. A good number of classification theories are disputed. Therefore, X languages simply tells us that the article is about languages that can collectively be called X. Basically, I'm saying that the shorter name introduces some useful fuzziness in our definition - it's far easier to let the article deal with disputations and theories than the article title. --Gareth Hughes 1 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

This is where I stand, for the record. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 1, 2005 15:15 (UTC)

a special case was Greek languages, because in the case of Greek it is customary to speak of Greek dialects. Otherwise, I suppose this is just a corollary of "common use" make "X language family" a redirect, and do disambiguation only in cases where the singular is a different article, as in Greek language. dab (ᛏ) 1 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

hi. this is ok with me.

as mentioned above, there is a problematic ambiguity in certain cases of xxx language and xxx languages referring to different things. this is not so good, i think. so, restricting the singular to a single language & the plural to more than one language would prevent and additionally it seems to be rather intuitive.

i do note that xxx languages is ambiguous in that it could refer to either a genetic grouping (that may or may not be controversial) or another type of grouping, such as areal or cultural or typological or something else. regarding genetic groupings, there are, after all, two things that can be referred to, namely, the language family or the individual members of the language family. Misplaced Pages has so far used xxx languages to refer to any grouping (this statement is provisional in that i havent carefully examined the consistency of this practice). so, either we can continue this as before or be very explicit and change every article to xxx language family. then, we can leave xxx languages for other types of groupings (even though that the exact relationships in these articles would remain ambiguous). but, any article about a genetic language family will most probably make reference to its individual language members. so... on a practical note, we would have to type all of this every time we wanted to link to these articles, so... maybe we can live with this ambiguity. (however, we shouldnt live with the xxx language/xxx languages ambiguity since it is a bit worse, i think). peace – ishwar  (speak) 2005 July 1 21:13 (UTC)

by the way, why doesnt someone check out the way other encyclopedias do things? sometimes it is nice if certain writing genres are comfortably uniform, i.e. do we want[REDACTED] to be an oddball? (i'm not saying that it is). peace – ishwar  (speak) 2005 July 1 21:22 (UTC)

I actually did check that, and XXX languages is by far the most common way other encyclopedias handle this, which is another reason why I would argue for us putting it in our naming conventions. As Gareth and you point out, XXX languages leaves the actual nature of the grouping (genetic or geographic) an open question, and I regard that as an important advantage. XXX language family is really too cumbersome and is bound to get us into problems as far as controversial groupings are concerned. — mark ✎ 1 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Thank you all for tuning in. Our discussion seems to confirm my view that Misplaced Pages practice as it stands now already is the most intuitive and practical way to handle this, and that nothing stands in the way of updating the naming conventions accordingly. Does anyone have comments on the wording of my proposal and the choice of examples? — mark ✎ 1 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

I have updated the relevant pages of our Naming Conventions. — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)

I guess I'm too late to contribute to this discussion, but I would like to point out that people do say "the Indo-European language" to mean "the Proto-Indo-European language", and that while people may rarely say "the Celtic language", articles do sometimes have sentences like "Irish is a Celtic language" and it would be nice to format that as "Irish is a ]" rather than "Irish is a ]" all the time. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 6 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

Isn't that what redirects are for?

Peter July 6, 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Volta-Congo, Atlantic-Congo, Bantoid are a few redirects I made back when piped links didn't work in tables; I do like those more than redirects like Volta-Congo language etc., mainly because I only link the 'Volta-Congo' part when saying things like "X is a Volta-Congo language". Angr, you are right, it's a bit tedious to wikilink those things right now — but I don't think we should let that influence our naming conventions. — mark ✎ 6 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Redirects may work for some of them, but ] doesn't a redirect to ], it redirects to ], which lets you know that in addition to the people and their languages, there are also sports teams called Celtic or The Celtics. ] redirects to ], though, so I guess I could use that. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 7 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

language varieties and groups thereof

I find the naming conventions for languages not to be very helpful, since they don't mention varieties at all.

Take for instance German varieties found in the family tree of the article West Germanic languages: We find the following schemes being used for subgroups of languages (I'm referring to the actual names of the articles, not to the names used on the page):

1. XXX, for instance Austro-Bavarian
2. XXX language, for instance Alemannic language
3. XXX , for instance High German
4. XXX language, for instance Central German language
5. XXX languages, for instance Upper German languages

In the same family tree, the following schemes are used for individual varieties:

1. XXX, for instance Wymysojer (what's that?)
2. XXX language, for instance Limburgish language
3. XXX dialect, for instance Silesian dialect
4. XXX , for instance Basel German
5. XXX language, for instance Pennsylvania German language

With regards to varieties of the English language, there is luckily less confusion of naming schemes, the de facto standard seemingly being XXX (that is, XXX English), both for subgroups and for individual varieties, as can be seen on the pages linked on the List of dialects of the English language. There are very few exceptions that use the scheme XXX, such as Received pronunciation (most of the XXX schemes, however, don't link to varieties of English, but to regions or ethnic groups, such as Dorset or Cockney). I have not found any English variety or group of varieties whose naming scheme would include language(s) or dialect(s), which makes a sharp contrast to the varieties of German discussed above.

I favour the de facto naming standard for English varieties and groups of varieties, XXX . There are several advantages of the scheme XXX :

• It avoids the delicate term dialect.
• It does not distinguish between a group of varieties and an individual variety, which is in most cases a question of interpretation (Southern American English can be referred to either as a group of varieties or as a special variety).
• It specifies at once what language the variety belongs to.

Of course, varieties that are being used as standard languages of their own right should be named according to the existing scheme XXX language, for instance Luxembourgish language or Yiddish language. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 11:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

These are some good points. I would support the scheme XXX parent (i.e. Standard Yoruba, Anlo Ewe) for language varieties and I think it is a good idea to add something to the conventions to this effect. — mark ✎ 07:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Programming language suffix

I was surprised to find that this naming convention appears to mandate the use of the suffix programming language for disambiguation (à la Scheme programming language, SML programming language etc.). I had assumed that on Misplaced Pages the usage of a parenthesed suffix (à la Scheme (programming language) and SML (programming language)) was standard for disambiguation. Even more surprising, the naming convention appears to mandate the creation of redirect pages using the parenthesed suffix?? -- Tobias Bergemann 20:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear. After browsing the (archived) discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (languages)/Archive 2 I am not sure I really want to open that can of worms again. Nevermind. -- Tobias Bergemann 20:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dialects

The convention says nothing about dialects. Every so often someone wants to rename 'X language' to 'X dialect' for the reason that it is not 'a language in its own right'. I find the use of an absolute definition of 'dialect' impossible, and so would advise that we simply do not use the word in article titles. Does anyone else want a statement to this effect added to the convention? --Gareth Hughes 16:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is a wide and substantiated agreement on numerous varieties to be varieties of another language. I consider this ought to be reflected on Misplaced Pages; we shouldn't just lump everything together as languages. I admit I certainly have a bias on one hand as linguist of–on the other hand—a language with very marked regional variance (German).

I understand that the term dialect is very problematic, and that's the reason why I've proposed above the naming scheme "XXX ", for instance Estuary English or Bernese German. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking in my capacity as a student of Linguistics, I can safely assure you that there is no linguistic criteria for distinguishing between a language and a dialect. See my user page for some quotes. :) - FrancisTyers 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking in my capacity as a student of Linguistics, I can safely assure that certain varieties are classified by their speakers as dialects of a certain language. Likewise, there are plenty of Misplaced Pages articles that contain the word "dialect" in their title. For sure, there cannot be a clearcut definition for the distinction between dialects and languages, but you can research why certain varieties are considered dialects. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Language histories

There's two ways of naming language histories at the moment:

1. History of XXX
2. History of the XXX langauge

The latter seems to be more common, but no centralized discussion has been conducted. I tried putting this on the agenda by making a proposal in the language template and starting a thread over at the project talkpage, but I suppose it's better if he had the discussion here.

The arguments I've seen so far are that 2. is better because it looks better and is supposedely less ambiguous. My own preference is 1. because I like concise article titles and because wordage that isn't actually necessary should always be avoided. Yet another argument has been that the title should follow the formula used by the individual language articles, but I must say that I'd rather have consistent naming even if I didn't agree with the format.

Peter 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer (1), as long as it is unambiguous, which it will almost always be. As per general principle of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

History article should be named like the language article. TurkChan (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is "language" suffix rather than standard disambiguation?

Why is the convention/guideline for languages to use the suffix language without parenthesis, rather than the WP standard disambiguation specified in a parenthetic remark? To make this guideline more in line with common widespread Misplaced Pages standards, how about changing this guideline accordingly? That would including making changes such as the following:

• English language → English (language)
• French language → French (language)
• Italian language → Italian (language)
• Greek language → Greek (language)

Thoughts/comments? --Serge 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly based on how other encyclopedias name their langauge articles and because it's more intuitive to link to them without having to pipe it. I don't see the merit in changing a simple standard into a more complicated one just to make it slightly more uniform.

Peter 11:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The existing convention appears adequate. -Will Beback · † · 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Will Beback and Peter; the current convention seems fine. — mark ✎ 22:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Suffix should be standard

Suffix should be standard. Almost all articles use it, but with the current policy, people can jump in and create mess like at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Old_Turkic_language&action=history - only because someone does not know of ambiguity allows him to move articles around.

Can someone please move that back to Old Turkic language and make the page a dab with Old Turkic script? TurkChan (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this a problem? Old Turkic is about the language itself and is supposed to cover both spoken and written forms. Old Turkic script is just a sub-topic of the language, just like High Middle Ages is a sub-topic of Middle Ages. Why not just include a summary of the script article in the language article?

Peter 13:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Convention violations

Old English language was moved to Old English, while there exists whole load of other articles Old English (disambiguation). TurkChan (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the most common meaning of "Old English" is the language and that this meaning far outweighs the notability of a comedy troupe, a former NY district or an extinct bulldog breed. I can't see any convention violation at all here.

Peter 13:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A review of the text

=Mentioning a language=

Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should suffixed with "language". If the language name is a unique noun, there is no need for the "language" suffix. For example, write "English language" and "Persian language", but "Esperanto" and "Latin". Programming languages will need "(programming language)" as a parenthetical suffix if their name is shared with some other thing. For example, write "Python (programming language)", but "VBScript". Notice how a wikilink also use parenthetical phrases, but for a different purposes (disambiguation and redirects).

==Linking a language name==

If you should decide to also wikilink such phrases, link the entire phrase, and then take care to prove the link. If a disproven link goes to a non-existent page, take up the offer to create the page (by clicking on it's red title), and simply redirect. For example, you may need to create the page ] with the text "#REDIRECT GoScript". (To be thorough, you would similarly check ].)

If a disproven link goes to a disambiguation page (] or]), repair your wikilink to match the one you find on the disambiguation page. If you do not find it there, please add it. (Simply edit the disambiguation page to include a direct link to your target, and then go repair your own link.) These type efforts automate the repair of all writing, even that which uses other naming conventions.

=Plural name of a language=

If you do not speak the language you mention, consider the very real possibility that the language you are writing about may need to be made plural. In normal English the plural form of a language term is the same as the non-plural form—Spanish, English—but some language names are better referenced as Language families and groups of languages. Thus, "Niger-Congo languages" rather than "Niger-Congo language", and "Sino-Tibetan language" rather than "Sino-Tibetan language".

When you need to use plurals, writing "languages" is preferred over writing " language family" because the three-word, family phrase method will mention an ethnic or geographic term which may create a future need to cleanup the article, in case a related controversy arises. There are cases where dialect clusters and ethnic groupings change over time. Compare Kalenjin language and Kalenjin languages.

These natural language considerations do not apply to computer programming languages. These all have families and versions. Do not make plural the name of a specific Computer programming language. For example, do not write "C (programming languages)". There is some valid context for "C (programming language) family", however.

Discussion points:

1. A black and white printout would fail to show the blue links in the first paragraph.
2. Paragraphs and sections clearly separate naming and linking subjects.
3. The idea "wikilink also use parenthetical phrases, but for a different purpose" was added to serve as both a transition and a clarification of the main ideas (and might help deter discussions like 3 and 6 above concerning programming language suffixes).
4. Added the idea to "link the entire phrase", as in examples at Misplaced Pages:Link#Link_specificity
5. A more realistic example of a redirect concerns a future programming language called "GoScript" replaced an example using "English".
6. The last paragraph, concerning plural" was broken into two: p1 and p2...
7. The idea that "In most cases, a redirect from the singular to the plural title is not needed" seems to be covered. (The other part of the sentence was moved up.)
8. The last paragraph was added to clarify that "plural" applies in the opposite way for computer programming languages.

CpiralCpiral 08:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
CpiralCpiral 04:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bantu language names

Should we follow the example set by Swahili language for other Bantu languages and avoid the prefix in the title, for example at Ganda language? There's a request to move the article to Luganda, but I'm finding plenty of references to "Ganda" both in linguistic and non-linguistic works (such as art, history, and evangelism), some published in Uganda by Ganda authors. Also, in general, since many Bantu languages are obscure, should we try to follow the native or anglicized form? For example, some journals request that names in articles be in a specific format (such as "Swahili" and "the Swahili" rather than Kiswahili and Waswahili), and I can see advantages to consistent usage in an encyclopedia as well. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Bantu). This is not yet linked to the MOS nav boxes, pending y'all's input. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not all that excited about generating a lot of additional guideline documents. Wouldn't this fit quite easily within the framework of this page?

Peter 08:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It could, but the existing document is so short, I thought that would seem an undue concentration on Bantu. How about this?:

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, that term is preferred, especially when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes. For example, Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. The {{Infobox Bantu name}} may be used to list the various affixed forms, as at right for Tswana.

(Taivo mentions also Berber, and there are other families around the world with such patterns, so we might want to move the template from "NC name". On the other hand, "NC" is obscure enough that we might just take it as arbitrary.) — kwami (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Perhaps we should clarify what the options are for articles related to cultures/peoples when we disambiguate them from an XXX language article. We have, for example, Zulu people, French people, and Hawai'ian people but we also have Germans, Poles, and Russians. From usage, it seems that the modifier "people" is used most often, though when the plural noun is different from the adjectival form (e.g. Ukrainians vs. Ukrainian), the former by itself is a plausible choice. Very rarely, (e.g. Maori and Guarini Guarani) the people article is the default and there is no disambiguation page. Should we prescribe one over the others? Should we proscribe any? Are there conditions or typologies I haven't considered? — Ƶ§œš¹ 00:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Guarini is actually a disambiguation page. --Avenue (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Guarani. The clarification is sort of moot now since that, too, is now a DAB page. — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have the dab page by default. Personally, I prefer "X people", but I doubt it matters much. Maybe "Xs" for the better known peoples.

Also, I added a section at WP:Naming conventions (people). That was intended for biographies, but is the obvious place for a reader to look for this. I tried to say something about "tribe", which is inconsistently and often wrongly used on WP. I don't expect that to be stable, so take a shot if you think it can use work.

IMO, "X" should be the title when we do not have separate articles for the people and their language, or when only one of those goes by the name "X". — kwami (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The main argument given for the status quo in the current discussion at Talk:Māori is that the people is the primary topic for the term "Māori". Our Māori page should therefore be about the people, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and not be reserved for disambiguation. The issue arises because the accepted English plural form for Māori (people) is now simply Māori, which is the same term as used for their language. This is not true for any of the other examples listed above, and explains why the situation is rare. There is no need to violate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this rare case. --Avenue (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the case for lots of peoples: English, Welsh, Irish, French, Zulu, Swahili, Yoruba, Igbo, Ashanti, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish--essentially anything ending in -ish or -ese, which is quite a bit. It's precisely because the same form is used for both that we have dab pages. Primary topic is fine, but it's often difficult to judge, many editors link to the bare name without consideration of which they mean, and it varies from people to people. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a collective sense in which one can talk of "the English" (say), but that's not what I meant. I cannot speak of "five English" walking down the road (and the same applies to at least the other European examples in your list), but I can say "five Maori". (We can also use "a Maori" for the singular. There was a time when "five Maoris" would have been fine, but that now seems uneducated to my ears.) Maybe this isn't true for non-NZ English speakers. --Avenue (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

While it is important that the plural noun (Maori) is not different from the adjectival form (Maori), that simply means that we can't use the same format as with Germans or Russians (i.e. with an s ending).

The only options, then, are to add "people" when we can't pluralize or to make the unmodified form the default and disambiguate with hatnotes. It seems that, whatever we decide, there should be consistency across Misplaced Pages. — Ƶ§œš¹ 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the conversation has died a little, perhaps we can reinvigorate it this way: the naming convention as it stands is ambiguous enough that it needs tweaking no matter what we decide. I've begun a proposed rewrite of one of the paragraphs to incorporate changes reflecting the position that Kwami and I have expressed (feel free to revise for clarity) and have set up a placeholder for those who have disagreed (I won't presume to write it myself). This way, we can all see clearly what's at stake beyond the Maori article. — Ƶ§œš¹ 06:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

.....You say "The only options, then, are to add "people" when we can't pluralize .....". That would create a title which means people people. Māori already means people. Moriori (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not in English it doesn't. When you say you "speak Maori", you're not saying you speak "people". And although the Georgians are people, Georgian culture is not therefore Maori culture. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably didn't mean to, but you have made my day. Māori has many meanings/usages, and people is one of them. Moriori (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In English, "Maori" does not mean "people." — Ƶ§œš¹ 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither does Inuit, but in the Inuktitut language it means people. We have an article called Inuit, not an article called Inuit people. Moriori (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you brought that up. In the Maori language, maori means "normal" and the phrase for people is tangata maori.μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we don't have an Inuit people article because Inuit means people in another language, Moriori? — Ƶ§œš¹ 02:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To put my five cents' worth, just because an ethnic name means "people" in some other language doesn't mean that meaning carries over in English. It's silly to prescribe that you can't say "Inuit people" in English just because of what Inuit means in an Inuit language. You simply can't make the argument that a sentence like "I speak Inuit" means "I speak people" in English and thus is not a valid English sentence. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. For what it's worth, the reason we don't have an Inuit people article is because there isn't overlap between the term for people and the language (the language is Inuktitut, though it is part of the group of Inuit languages). This discussion reflects that notion. The editors who've made such determinations could be wrong, but their reasoning wasn't "Inuit people would mean 'people people.'" — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-disambiguation

This is where drafting of the proposed changes to the naming conventions take place.

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language. This is especially so when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. If an English plural form (distinct from the singular name) exists, it may be used for the article about the people, as at Russians with a redirect from Russian people. The ambiguous common name should serve as a disambiguation page: Chinese, Tswana, Russian.

• Support and suggest that the final clause should be rewritten "the latter is not an option when the name of the people does not differentiate in form between singular and plural, as is the case for Maori" to avoid ambiguity. The proposal provides some logic and consistency in naming and comports with what is already largely established practice.μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of standard practice, see this list of ethnic names. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. — Ƶ§œš¹ 02:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami added text regarding tribes and dialects, which I've taken out since I think it's a bit of a non-sequitor for this issue. Here's the text either way:

The terms tribe and dialect should only be used for tribes and dialects, such as Bukusu tribe (Luhya) and Bukusu dialect (Luhya), not for tribal or non-Western peoples in general. (Compare Luhya people and Luhya language, which are commonly but inaccurately called the Luhya tribe and Luhya dialect.)

— Ƶ§œš¹ 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this isn't just a naming convention for languages, but also for peoples, could we agree on something to put back in? I've moved dozens of articles w 'tribe' in the title, most of which did not deal with tribes. The same is true of 'dialect', though most of those have been taken care of. However, IMO it would be a good idea to be clear on when these words are appropriate, and when they are not. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kwami wholeheartedly re "tribe" and believe his suggestion is non-controversial and that it should be executed now, as it can be done either as part of or separately from this proposal.μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think anyone has expressed disagreement on the issue of tribes/dialects here or at WP:Naming conventions (people) (Gadfium's note of disagreement doesn't pertain to tribes but on the issue we're trying to resolve here). I also agree with it, but was trying to stay focused. By the way, what's the meaning behind italicized forms and non-italicized forms? Did I mess it up in the draft? — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I did. Removed from my 'tribe' proposal.

Removed the 'Maori' bit. Of course this is only an option when it's a possibility—do we really need to say that?

"(this is not an option when the name of the people does not differentiate in form between singular and plural, as is the case with Maori)"

— kwami (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might be wise to be explicit. — Ƶ§œš¹ 14:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing reference to cases where the plural and singular are not differentiated is problematic - it will lead directly to people insisting that using the singular form alone for the nationality is fine, since it could be taken as the plural, and thus would vitiate the standard. Instead of removing Maori, we should retain it and add more examples such as Japanese as in "China frees two Japanese." μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about the wording now? It's fairly commonsense, so IMO the shorter the sweeter. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I still have the gut feeling that people will say something like "but Chinese is the distinct plural form of the word!" The problem is that distinct in this context is a relative and not absolute term. The question here is "distinct from what?" We should make it absolutely explicit that we mean when the plural form is not distinct from the singular, and, preferably, give examples. I think history shows that appeals to common sense have failed when we get people insisting on patent, false, and self-contradictory nonsense along the lines of 'everyone knows that, in Maori, Maori means Maori people.' μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ 01:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Query: This subsection is headed "Pro-disambiguation", but the draft wording seems silent on whether disambiguation is required for terms like Maori, Japanese, Inuit etc that are both plural and adjectival forms (except perhaps if there are related opaque terms, e.g. that include prefixes). This does not seem in keeping with the discussion above. Is it meant to include a penultimate sentence such as "If the plural name for the people is the same as the adjectival form, e.g. Chinese, then the articles should be titled Chinese people and Chinese language, with Chinese being a disambiguation page"? The first sentence is also vague about what the common name is preferred to; would "that term is preferred over variant forms" be clearer? --Avenue (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How's that? — kwami (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A little repetitive. I've combined your recent addition to the first sentence. I think this addresses Avenue's concern about the paragraph not saying what we've been wanting it to say. — Ƶ§œš¹ 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've revised it slightly to fix the grammar (a sentence fragment). I think "explicit denotation" is hard to follow, so perhaps this is still too brief, but it is much clearer than before. --Avenue (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I added "from the singular" to address my concern. It could be put in parentheses if necessary, and I am not reverted outright.μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need, but it doesn't hurt any apart from making it wordier. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I don't know if "explicit disambiguation" is the right term as it evokes wp:disambiguation without saying what we mean. We're trying to tell people to put "people" when it's ambiguous, which I was hoping "explicit denotation" and the Chinese examples would do. — Ƶ§œš¹ 02:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either really do, esp. if we need to explain what 'a distinct plural form' means. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with the current wording and recent edits. I just wish to make myself perfectly clear on the issue of a distinct plural form. So please forgive me.

One could argue that, unlike the count noun rice, which lacks a plural form in normal usage, the word sheep does have a plural form, which is sheep. This form is distinct. That is, it is not some other form such as *shep or *sheeep or *sheeps nor is it variable according to author or geography or day of the week. If you spell it any way other than sheep you have spelled it wrong. You cannot properly say something such as the "*sheeps are." The proper plural form sheep is quite distinct from the improper plural form *sheeps. That being said, the form sheep is not distinct form the form sheep. The spelling and pronunciation of the plural form is not distinct from that of the singular form.

So yes, if you keep in mind the perversity of human nature, and the fact that no imaginable argument will long last unmade at wikipedia, if you are going to use the word distinct, it is distinctly necessary to specify what you are holding the plural form to be distinct from.

μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how one could argue that sheep has a distinct plural form. It's the same form as the singular, not distinct at all. (Rice does not have a plural, so the question does not arise.) — kwami (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Medeis isn't saying it's a distinct plural, only that it has a plural. Kind of a strange way of wording it, though. Doesn't the current wording indicate what "distinct" is from in this case? — Ƶ§œš¹ 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"This form is distinct." — kwami (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I said I was quite happy with the current wording, and I still am. I am arguing that "distinct" on its own without the qualifier "from the singular" was fatally ambiguous. Indeed, the word "sheep" is not indistinct. It is distinct from the word sheet, and the misspellings shep and sheeep. It is just not distinct from the singular, with which it is identical in spelling and pronunciation, if not grammatical number. The bottom line is, I am happy with the current wording.μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see it. "Sheep" does not have a distinct plural. I don't see how that's ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that it has an indistinct plural? :)

The problem is that you are not differentiating between two possible senses of 'distinct', the first being absolute: well defined and the second being relative: different in form from something else. If a doctor tells you, 'you have a distinct mole on your back' he is not saying that the mole is distinct from other moles, but that the mole is not indistinct, possibly a pimple or a discoloration. If we do not retain the qulification "distinct from the singular" you can be quite sure that we will get people arguing that the plural form is distinct in the absolute sense of being well defined. Again, the current wording addresses this well and I am happy with it. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that, when someone says "distinct plural" it is implicitly understood to mean "distinct from the singular."

Anyway, after some reflection (and after reading through other parts of these naming conventions), I'm warmer to using "explicit disambiguation," FWIW. — Ƶ§œš¹ 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your faith in the what is implicitly understood by editors amazes me, given the type of statements made about people's special intuition at Talk:Maori. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, either way, it's clear now. — Ƶ§œš¹ 21:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not oppose restoring "explicit disambiguation" so long as the remainder of the text is retained.

At this point I think there has been enough debate and comment that the edit should shortly be made. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Would not this: "an explicitly disambiguated title based on that term is preferred for both articles" be more elegant than "a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles"? μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That would work.

What about "If a separate plural form exists in English"? The problem I'm having is that the sentence has become so convoluted that it's becoming difficult to follow. Generally, simpler is better, esp. since the idea we're conveying is pretty simple. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support adding the word separate, but am opposed to removing "(distinct from the singular name)" for the same reasons given above. While you and I think the issue is simple, experience shows that editors will argue otherwise. I do actually think that

If a separate English plural form (distinct from the singular name) exists, the article for the people may use that instead.

Would be quite good. To fix the problem of the run-on sentence, the example should be removed as a separate sentence:

For example, see the disambiguation page Russian, which links to the articles Russian language and Russians for the ethnicty, with Russian people being a redirect to the latter.

. That solves the problem of too complex a sentence.μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That still seems awkward. I reordered to what I think is a more straightforward presentation. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this wording:

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language. This is especially so when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana. If an English plural form (distinct from the singular name) exists, it may be used for the article about the people, as at Russians with a redirect from Russian people. The ambiguous common name should serve as a disambiguation page: Chinese, Tswana, Russian.

Is quite excellent.

• Support pro-disambiguation. I don't have anything to add to what has already been said, though. --JorisvS (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (again) in the current form. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Ƶ§œš¹ 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no-one has proposed a competing convention, and we seem happy with the wording, I'll put it in now. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-freedom

This is where drafting of the proposed changes to the naming conventions take place.

Articles should...

Juu dialects

I'd like advice on what to do with Juu dialects‎. Ethnologue classifies them as 6 languages, though at least one appears to be spurious. Heine considers them a single language (language complex/dialect continuum), which he calls !Xun. The people are the !Kung, and that would appear to be the common name. Move to "!Kung language", with the component lects demoted to dialects? — kwami (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, especially as long as the information on competing interpretations is clear to the reader. — Ƶ§œš¹ 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rundi / Kirundi

Contested move at Talk:Kirundi. In this case there isn't a Rundi ethnic group, so we won't likely have a competing article, though sources do still speak of the Rundi people (the inhabitants of Burundi). — kwami (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee

Looks like Cherokee needs to be moved to conform to our conventions. — Ƶ§œš¹ 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read Trail of Tears before suggesting that Cherokee "needs to be moved" or especially acted on without consensus. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a joke with genocide as the punchline. — Ƶ§œš¹ 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that a joke? You saw what happened at Maori. You will find very few articles where a move might be more controversial. I don't know your personal background or knowledge of the subject. Warning you to be sensitive to potentially highly emotionally invested editors hardly amounts to a joke. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We've all seen "The Cigar Store Indian" episode of Seinfeld where Jerry avoids using words like "reservation" and "scalper" when talking to a Native American woman. However, I think editors' sensibilities are refined enough that they'll be able to discuss a procedural issue at an encyclopedia without the matter evoking forced relocation. I think you're going overboard here on being sensitive on behalf of someone else.

Anyway, perhaps Kwami can speak to the frequency at which this sort of thing becomes contentious. It doesn't take much to put something in the talk page explaining the rationale and waiting a few days. — Ƶ§œš¹ 22:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Maori debate was bizarre. The only others which have even come close involve an actual change in name, as below. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Amendment proposal on Bantu languages

Hi all,

I would like to propose the removal (or significant modification) of the following line, which was the result of the proposal above under the Bantu language names section:

This is especially so when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana.

This line, which appears to be aimed mostly at Bantu languages (but possibly also at Asian forms such as Bahasa Malaysia), is probably perfectly fine for the Tswana case, but is now being used as a reason to avoid common names at Kinyarwanda, Kirundi and Luganda. Unlike the Tswana language and Zulu language cases, the "borrowed" native forms Kinyarwanda, Kirundi and Luganda have taken a firm hold in English sources, from the CIA through the BBC and also including almost 100% of English speakers actually resident in those countries (see the debates at Talk:Kirundi and Talk:Kinyarwanda for reams of discussion on this). A blanket policy is therefore not appropriate in this case, and it would be sufficient to end the guideline with the Chinese people and Chinese language guideline, which would automatically apply anyway to clear cut cases such as Zulu and Tswana. Thanks, and I look forward to any comments you guys may have on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. This is not WP policy, it's a convention. It quite clearly states, "Where a common name exists is preferred". Key terms here are common and preferred. That is, there could easily be overriding factors, and on the Kirundi article you are arguing on grounds of what is 'common'. I've said myself that Rundi is not a clear-cut case, and after debating it, am not sure I still want the RfM to succeed. As for the Chinese example being sufficient, it is not: people would immediately claim that "Zulu" is not equivalent to "Chinese" because it has different forms, Amazulu and Isizulu, whereas Chinese does not. And although this started off with Bantu, it applies to several other language families where the names have similar properties. If we lose this, we're back to half of the articles using prefixes and half not with little rhyme or reason. Better IMO to save the arguments for the few cases where a strong case can be made for using the prefix, than to potentially have arguments going back and forth for each article. — kwami (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken - I had not spotted the distinction between convention and policy. As I've said before, I don't object to the clause as a good rule of thumb, and if it helps multiple edit wars over the clear-cut cases then that's fine, but I want to avoid the danger that it is seen as an overriding guideline even in cases where the common name lies elsewhere, or is believed by some to lie elsewhere, (as at Kirundi/Kinyarwanda). Perhaps we could consider replacing this is especially so, which suggests a guideline overriding others, with more neutral language illustrating how the guideline is applied in the Tswana case. Perhaps:

This may also apply when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana.

? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that there might be arguments for change on many existing Bantu language articles, but I think there needs to a clearer definition of "common name". Much academic material out there on Bantu languages is based work that is at least 50 years old (the likes of Malcolm_Guthrie and Carl_Meinhof) and does not reflect how those languages are understood by English speakers today. So perhaps more weight needs to be giving to sources from the media, than encyclopedia articles. — Rowanseymour (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that in many cases there is more than one common name. Kirundi:Rundi was about 3:2 in the data collected on that page; many other cases are much closer than that. Such debates tend to devolve into arguments over which sources we should use for data, which need to be excluded, which search engines are reliable, what the numbers really mean, etc. This happens almost every time. It's a mess. Many people have tried to get a clearer def of "common name" but have failed because there are considerations pulling in other directions, such as whether we use the local or international form. I've tried getting cases like Ganges/Ganga addressed clearly and have just been frustrated.

As for "especially so" w prefixes, IMO this is reasonable. We recently diverged with Shoshone people and Shoshoni language because of common-name concerns. Those two variants are so close that readers might not even notice. But when you start getting things like Shilha and Tashelhit it gets more opaque. I think it's reasonable to prefer the non-affixed form in such cases simply for accessibility. — kwami (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I probably won't push this if you really think the current wording is very helpful, and as long as we're clear that it should not be used as a trump card when considering common usage for any individual cases.

As an aside, I do question your "accessibility" criterion, however - I'll be honest, I've never heard of either Shilha or Tashelhit, therefore it makes little difference to me (as a complete newcomer to the topic) which of the two titles the language resides at. I would also not feel unduly confused were the language to reside at Tashelhit while the people were at Shilha people if, that is, the common usage amongst English speakers in Morocco or internationally is to split them that way. As a new reader I am more interested to know how the language and people are really known rather than being given not-so-common titles merely so I get an insight into the etymology of the two words. (As I say, I have no idea onthe Shilha/Tashelhit case so am not commenting on that specifically). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rowanseymour, have you checked WP:COMMONNAME? — Ƶ§œš¹ 13:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of wikiprojects appear to develop naming policies which diverge ever so slightly from WP:COMMONNAME and tend to favour whatever is "technically accurate" in the context of that wikiproject. (For instance, some biological articles adopt the binomial name for a species even where there is a widely used "common name" for that species). I can live with that kind of approach - this is an encyclopædia, after all, and technical accuracy is no bad thing. So, whilst we should try to use WP:COMMONNAME wherever practical, I think it's perfectly OK to look for the more technically accurate translation if WP:COMMONNAME doens't give a clear majority to any one name. Consistent naming between different articles should not be anywhere near the top of the list of priorities. bobrayner (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But these aren't technically more accurate. They're just code switching, like pronouncing Paris "puh-REE", or calling the city of Naples "Napoli". — kwami (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say that hasn't been already but I want to lend support to having exceptions to the convention for languages such as Kinyarwanda, Kirundi, or Luganda where the prefix is commonly used. This is appropriate under the present guidelines but, if something new needs to be codified, an explicit exception can be given to cases where a prefixed name is the most common English name for that language. —  AjaxSmack  17:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the caveat of common usage was already present in the wording of these conventions. This is why the debates about Kinyarwanda and Kirundi were centered around what term was most common. — Ƶ§œš¹ 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So was I but the impetus for this discussion was feeling that this guideline was being used to justify usage of less common names as titles. —  AjaxSmack  19:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

naming of scripts

Although slightly tangential, there's a discussion on naming scripts here. At issue as I see it is whether we use the word "alphabet" for scripts that are familiar or prestigious, for all segmental scripts, or only for 'true' alphabets. I don't much care as long as it isn't the first (Hebrew 'alphabet' but Phoenician 'script', or Western 'alphabets' and Eastern 'scripts', etc).

Naming conventions under discussion here. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

dialects

added a brief section on dialects, and just noticed the old discussion above, which to a large extent we've been following. Please move the section here for discussion if there's anything controversial about it; AFAIK it reflects the facts on the ground. Examples might be improved. — kwami (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mossi vs Moore

There is a discussion at Talk:Mossi_language#Mossi vs Moore about the naming of this language, where the people are called 'Mossi', but the language is arguably better known as 'Moore', but Mossi is also used in English to refer to the language. John Vandenberg 03:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Variety"

The article ends:

Varieties can be named by appending the name of the parent language, as at Standard German and Old English. This is useful when there is disagreement as to whether a variety is an accent or a dialect, as at Estuary English, or a dialect or a separate language, as at Egyptian Arabic and Mandarin Chinese, or whether it constitutes a single dialect or several, as at Southern American English.

Old English is not a "variety" like Standard German, Estuary English, Southern American English, or Egyptian Arabic. Of the five "varieties" listed beside Old English, only Mandarin Chinese is the least bit comparable, being as different from, say, Wu varieties (of Chinese) as French is from Italian (among Romance languages). For that matter,

dialect family (and especially Southern Wu) is well-known among linguists and sinologists as being one of the most internally diverse among the spoken Chinese language families with very little mutual intelligibility among varieties within the family.
—Wu Chinese, emphasis added

In general, diachronic modifiers such as "Old", that serve to distinguish periods in the history of a language, should not be conflated with synchronic modifiers like "Egyptian" or "Mandarin", which distinguish varieties of a language or language family that exist at the same time, and are often the names of regions, ethnic groups, etc. This principle is supported by the first two examples in the first quotation above, which incorrectly generalizes about "appending the name of the parent language". Unlike the other modifiers (Estuary, Egyptian, Mandarin, Southern American), "Standard" and "Old" could never stand alone as glottonyms. --Thnidu (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the example and wording in that clause. The sentence now reads:

Varieties can be named by prepending a modifier to the name of the parent language, as at Standard German and African American Vernacular English. --Thnidu (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Unambiguous as a noun vs Latin

The naming guidelines say that language names that are unambiguous as a noun do not need the "language" suffix, but then the two examples are not unambiguous as nouns (see Esperanto (disambiguation) and Latin (disambiguation)). Contrast this to Rungtu, where there is no ambiguity as a title or noun on Misplaced Pages, but the move to the base name is controversial. I believe the naming guideline and/or its examples need to be updated to reflect the implementation on Misplaced Pages, which appears to be that if the language is the primary topic for its name (without the suffix), then it doesn't need the "language" suffix. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that could start a very messy debate as to whether, say, the Heiban language or Heiban people have greater coverage in the lit. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So we should move Latin to Latin language and Esperanto to Esperanto language and find some examples that are actually unambiguous, if that's the consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is that Latin and Esperanto should stay where they are. The problem is in presenting the reason for that consensus. In the case of Esperanto, all other uses are named after the language, so the language clearly has priority to the name. In the case of Latin, the language is no longer tied to the Latin people, and unlike in the cases of English, Spanish, etc, the original connection has become obscure. The vast majority of languages are named after either their ethnicity or their region, and do not have priority to the name.

I think the difficulty in explaining a reason for the consensus is that since the Latins are extinct and obscure, but the Latin language is familiar, that "Latin" should be an exception to the naming rule, and has nothing to do with cases like Esperanto or Kirundi. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is my suggestion, to get rid of the incorrect wording of the guidelines, which are obviously incorrect since they do not reflect the examples that they use. I added what the widespread consensus appears to be, but if my observation is wrong, the guidelines should still be updated to reflect whatever that consensus actually is. What you describe, however, is what I said: when the language is the primary topic ("clearly has priority"), it should be at the base name. We disagree over whether languages named after either their ethnicity or their region are primary topics when they are the only topic for their name covered on Misplaced Pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Added a line from WP:ETHNICGROUP

For discussion I have I hope not been too WP:BOLD and added a line, in effect duplicated a line from the sister guideline at WP:ETHNICGROUP:

As with the corresponding guideline at WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification a language name which is offensive to the group speaking the language should be avoided.

I would hope that it won't be too controversial and will go some way to reassuring non-linguist editors that those working on language articles are sensitive to this part of the WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) guideline. But if it is controversial those who wish to revert and discuss please do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added "if possible", because there may be instances where the English term is considered derogatory, but no reasonable alternative is available to English. A related instance also comes to mind, Serbo-Croatian, where not so much the term, but rather the concept is considered derogatory by many natives. --JorisvS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's good. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)

Please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#What the guidelines say which is related to this guideline. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Twodabs

Hi, just saw the revert of the Makah redirect with cited WP:NCL as a reason for the revert; however, nowhere does Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (languages) advocate for disambiguation pages with only two links. If anyone did want these to exist, they would need to gain consensus to change WP:TWODABS. Likewise if one wanted to change how primary topics are determined, one would have to gain consensus to change WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I believe User:Kwamikagami added an "ethnicity" parameter to the language infobox years ago, so each language article can link to corresponding ethnic group article and vice versa—to facilitate users actually finding the articles they want quickly. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

True, only the language part is at the language guideline, but that's because the ethnicity part is at the ethnicity guideline. We debated whether one or the other should be the primary topic, and finally agreed that neither should be, which leaves a two-link dab in many cases. Sure, you can argue the consensus should be changed, and maybe it should, but that would require us to actually change the consensus. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus for determining a primary topic would take place at wp:primarytopic. As the current NCL guidelines point out, sometimes the language is the primary topic (such as the given example, Latin); however, often it is not. Makah people is overwhelmingly the primary topic of Makah, considering it has over ten times the incoming links as Makah language. Current page view statistics wouldn't be helpful, since for more of the recent months, Makah had redirected to Makah people; however, in July 2010, the month following the establishment of the disambiguation page, the language got 369 hits, while the people got 1,957 hits. It would be a very unique extinct language that would attract more readers than a living people. All language and ethnic groups articles should link to each other; if they don't have infoboxes yet, then via a hatnote. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I do not understand the statement about changing WP:TWODABS. If there is no primary topic, the dab page goes at the base name, whether it disambiguates two topics or two hundred topics; WP:TWODABS addresses the ability to live without a disambiguation page at all if (and only if) there is a primary topic. A two-element list at Makah is fine, as long as neither is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally want to change WP:twodabs WP:2DABS, but if anyone else does, that conversation would need to take place there. Currently WP:Twodabs explicitly states that a disambiguation page with only two links is undesirable and should be avoided. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

No, it doesn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh brother, WP:2DABS and WP:Twodabs lead to two different places. Okay, so *WP:2DABS* reads "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." The debate then is if there is a primary topic or not, which is determined through WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is through incoming links, traffic, and English reliable sources. In the case of Makah, there's clearly a primary topic, as there usually is in these cases. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

They lead me to the same place, and that place says only that dabs are unnecessary when two conditions are met: there are only two topics, and one of them is the primary topic. That guidance does not need to be updated for this case -- disambiguation pages at the base name (i.e., where there is no primary topic) with only two links are perfectly fine. Whether or not there is a primary topic for "Makah" is a different discussion, but no change to WP:TWODABS is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes.... I'm agreeing that I don't want WP:2DABS changed. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The reason we decided against this last time was that trying to decide, based on coverage in the lit, whether the people or the language is the primary topic would be a nightmare. Another possibility is that, since the language is normally named after the people, would be to simply dictate that the people are the primary topic. (A language cannot exist without the people that speak it, and so is logically dependent on the people. On the other hand, ethnolinguistic groups are defined by the language they speak, and so are logically dependent on the language. And trying to decide whether an obscure nation or an obscure language has more coverage in the lit would cause no end of argument.) — kwami (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What "lit" would that be - you mean your own field, of course. View stats and googles and incoming links are not all that hard to figure out re PRIMARYTOPIC. The "no end of argument" you speak of its your own circular argument(s), like we are seeing here once more; and re " trying to decide whether an obscure nation or an obscure language has more coverage in the lit" - you need to read outside your field, sounds like; the titles/peoples you are disputing so ardently are no "obscure", but living, breathing people and cultures you would do well to educate yourself about instead of presuming to call them "obscure". To you maybe, but not to people in regions where they are often the dominant population.Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum's reworded the guideline to claim that aboriginal peoples follow a different naming convention than other people, with the root word used as the title for the article about the people. This may be true for the US and Canada, but not for the rest of the world. I tried saying that, and he reverted. Knowing Skookum, this means he feels he needs to defend against a racist conspiracy waged by perverters of Truth (i.e., everyone else), so this will need some watching. Personally, I don't care if this is the convention for all ethnic articles, but the guideline is supposed to reflect reality, and the reality is that, outside North America, we use "X people" etc. for the people, and "X language" etc. for the language, with no distinction between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, AFAICT. Correct me if I'm wrong. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You were the one who wanted to separate indigenous usages in North America from the rest of the world; which is POV and OR and not what the consensus you cited said. As for "This may be true for the US and Canada, but not for the rest of the world" that's very wrong. And re "correct me if I'm wrong", There's no way to correct you, anything made in response to you will be called "nonsense" and "illogical" and worse.....you're very wrong about resisting the mandates of policy here as observed by Cuchallain and others and also in having ignored AT and more in the first place.Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And you are corrected about the use of "X people" elsewhere in the world. Correct though about the non-distinction between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. See Germans, Russians, Danes, Bonans, Dongxiangs and Evenks. None of them are in North America. I suspect that there are more but I saw little need to look further. By the way I find this and the associated edits to be petty and petulant. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

None of those are at the root, so they are not counter-examples. If you check German, Russian, Dane, Bonan, Dongxiang, or Evenk, you'll see they're all dabs except Bonan. What we are talking about here is something different: The root word being used for the people. There's very little of that outside North America.

They are not "petty". We appear to have two conventions here: The root being used for the people in North America, and some derivation of the root for the rest of the world. Now, we can move all the North American articles to match the rest of the world (that's what Skookum got so upset about), or we can move the rest of the world to match North America (that is, move "Germans" to "German", "Russians" to "Russian", etc), or we can note that we have two parallel conventions. But Skookum's tactic of denying reality is not helpful to other editors.

What you changed the guideline to, " the people are decided to be the primary topic if the language is the primary topic", is precisely what the consensus was not. We can change the consensus, of course, but that requires actually changing the consensus. I've reverted to the last stable version (before my or Skookum's edits) until we discuss this. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

and not common practice either......since when is an obvious "basic" redirect deleted - other than to make way for a move? dishonesty of this kind I've seen lots of from him, it's very tiresome and also disruptive and obviously tendentious. I put in "aboriginal" peoples, saying "indigenous" in the edit comment by mistake; the point here that's referred to is the self-identification passage in NCET (and MOS and elsewhere) about "ethnicities and tribes"....so yes, European and other groups are also included; most Australian indigenous people articles, other than the ones that Kwami moved to "FOO people" are already standalone; a very few were started that way. Haven't looked at Africa or South America yet, but Europe is a mess - "FOO people" is used as an article title for "persons who are FOOian", for others as the ethnic group, same with catnames.....Category:Sorbs got deleted and was apparently used for "people who are Sorbs" rather than as an ethnic group title; Category:Sorbian people has in it "people who are Sorbs" and also general-topic titles on Sorbian history and culture......"FOO people" article titles there tend to be for "people who are FOO". Dabs should only be used when necessary. Some dab pages started out as ethnic group pages, e.g. Sami was moved to Sami peoples in 2004, then made a TWODABS in 2006, then after an amusing series of IP additions about some girl named Sami Page, had more added to the dab page. I don't have time to run view stats on all of these right now, but "Sami" I'm betting is the PT far and away above everything else there; if not for self-identification guidelines and good manners, this page would be a Lapp, Lapp people, or Lapp peoples.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a point?

thanks for not signing your post, Mr Rubin. The point is that there is no separate category for the ethnic group there. There was, though its name also implies "people who are Sorbian" because it's in the FOOs format like Germans, Canadians etc. Because the current category is most accurate as "People who are Sorbian", the ethno category should be recreated at Category:Sorbs..... I note you didn't complain on that category that it doesn't have a description, which you took me to task for not having done elsewhere. Disputes as to which category should be what can follow; but there was no "Sorbia" (Germans called it Wendland however). The point is that "FOO people" is necessarily a flawed format for ethno article/category titles, unless it only refers to "people who are FOO"; the claim made here and by the reversionist at WP:NCET that it is "preferred" and "unambiguous" is not only fiction but very demonstrable false. I didn't even get your shot-in-the-dark here at first, thinking you were talking about the Sami titles..... Skookum1 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I changed ] (which mistakenly put this talk page into Category:Sorbian people) into ] which properly mentions the category. "Is there a point?" (to what you are saying) may still be a good question, but I had nothing to do with it. You are welcome to delete your mistake and this comment, and make whatever substantive comment you want, but you are seriously confused. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Me read more carefully? What about your mistake in not signing your comment, which where it was put was asking a question apparently in relation to the paragraph you were responding to; fine, you fixed a category that was mentioned, fine and dandy; but your question and your edit comment are both out of place here. I made no mistake, given what was asked, you were the one who made an unsigned comment for a question you apparently didn't even want answered, and an edit comment for that comment that had nothing to do with anything. It is not me who is mistaken, sir; you could have fixed that category link without making a comment/question but you did; that's not exactly a mistake, but it is more than a bit curious, since you didn't sign it and didn't even want an answer anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the edit history. I did not write "Is there a point?" Study of the edit history indicates that kwami added it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, and I do apologize; it was yes from a misreading of the compare columns I thought you had added that, and yes, I should have recognized the style of comment as unmistakeably someone else's.Skookum1 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And what does "escape category from 12 April 2014" in your edit comment for your unsigned comment have to do with anything here? There's nothing there (in CFD archives).Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In other words, I was converting an (improper) use of the category to a mention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As above, an apology; a removed colon is hard to see, and I didn't recognize that term; my own term for it is "blinding" a category. And it wasn't "improper", not putting colon in front of the category was a mistake; I certainly didn't mean this to show up in that category. It seems to late to revert now, unless someone else hasn't posted here yet maybe, in which case this whole exchange may be undone, with your permission/cooperation; in the meantime I'll strike-out my comments. That will still not restore the, um, "integrity" of Kwami's post. however; only a "mutual undo" will. The matter of there being no distinct ethno category for the Sorbs is relevant here - there is a point to what I had said, despite the rhetorical/usual challenge, though no easily solvable because both "Sorbs" and "Sorbian people" imply "individuals who are Sorb", but that can be restated again somewhere; like other confusions of this kind re ethno/people-ethno titles, it's not going to go away until resolved.Skookum1 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Russian? There we only have the people, language, and a comic-book character, so there is less need for a dab page than at Bonan (which doesn't have one, despite two articles on cities and four on people named "Bonan") or Sami. So, should the people or the language be moved to "Russian"? If we keep that as a dab, why is it different than North America? — kwami (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Being an encyclopedia, the sole purpose of article names should be to allow the reader (who in most cases has never read our MOS, 2dabs, NCL, etc., nor even knows they exist) to find the information they're looking for simply and easily. Logically, this means we have to present consistent predictable article titles. Having all people/language articles named "Foo people" and "Foo language", respectively, is simple, elegant and easy to understand. Furthermore it doesn't necessitate the hours of research and argument at each and every page in question to determine which is "primary" that will undoubtedly ensue. The lone singular adjective ("Foo") should be a dab page (yes, even if "Foo people" and "Foo language" are the only articles to be dab'ed). This convention of consistency is both quick and easy for us as contributors as well as simple and easy to understand for the reader.--William Thweatt 01:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

William, adding "people" when the meaning might be "peoples" and also when "FOO people" quite commonly means - especially in category names - means "people who are FOO", is not in any way precise or consistent - or accurate in many cases. And TWODABS pages are "not allowed" when a hatnote will suffice; that "FOO" is a noun, and in "FOO people" and "FOO language" it is an adjective, underscore the PRIMARYTOPIC reality as adjectives are modifiers not noun-topics. The readers can find the information simply and accurately by following the hatnote or see alsos or in-text links at the PRIMARYTOPIC titles; and the reality is, as view stats after view stats have shown, that language is not a parallel PRIMARYTOPIC as is being claimed here; people looking up Makah or Haida or Mi'kmaq are primarily looking for the people....making them "jump through hoop" of a needless dab page is undesirable and cumbersome for the reader. The bulk of ethno articles do not have any dab at all (I know, I've been compiling a complete list), and never did; the "people" additions were mostly done without consensus or discussion (other than the semi-private one here) over a certain period of time; and about 80% of the ones in North America have now been reverted by consensus which invoked in the closes policy, not this one sole guideline which is at the moment out of step with policy, since reverted again by its OWNer.Skookum1 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

From this guideline "Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this." and from the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), ""Elbonian people" , "Ethnic Elbonians", "Elbonians" and "Elbonian" are all acceptable. Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group." Also of note is the wording that appears in the top of the box on all guideline pages, "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

So the claimed consensus that it is mandated that all must be "Foo people" and "Foo language" is not actually in either of the guidelines. Now until recently we had Inuvialuk language and Inuvialuk people. The name of the language is Inuvialuktun and so, given that nothing else uses that name, this guideline is clear about where it should be. The people are Inuvialuit and again according to the ethnicities guideline that is acceptable as the article title. In fact having "Inuvialuk language" as the title went against this guideline.

In some cases the articles were at a stable name for almost 7 years and moved based on the claim of some consensus that was not in this guideline at the time. In addition the claimed consensus was not applied consistently. German people, Russian people, Danish people, Bonan people, Dongxiang people, Evenk people and Inuk people are either redirects or redlinks. However, according to the claimed consensus those should be where the articles are and not where they are currently. So why are they still at the so called "incorrect title"?

Finally, there is no need to change the guidelines, they are fine as they are. Nor is intended, and I've never made that claim, that "Foo" should apply to one particular area of the world. Each article should be looked at and a determination should be made. We should not be lazy and say "Foo" is to be a disambiguation to "Foo people" and "Foo language" and any other articles that are relevant. Some will end up with the people being the primary topic, some will end up with the language being the primary topic and some will end with neither being the primary topic. There is no rush for this and they don't all have to be dealt with tomorrow, next week, or even next year and no single person needs to comment on each one if they don't want to. Moving some of the articles from "Foo people" and "Foo language" also helps to cut down on original research (Inuvialuk people and Inuvialuk language for example). CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the existence of Latin and Esperanto at those titles instead of Latin language and Esperanto language shows that we can present titles logically without forcing more consistency than is needed. "the sole purpose of article names should be to allow the reader to find the information they're looking for simply and easily" is simply incorrect; instead "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." (WP:AT) Where the article (or redirect) "Foo people" doesn't exist, there's no reason not to have the language at "Foo" if it's known as "Foo". Where there article (or redirect) "Foo language" doesn't exist, there's no reason not to have the people at "Foo" if they're known as "Foo". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

CBWeather, repeating a strawman doesn't make it a sound argument. No-one is making the claim you're arguing against. You've been told this before, so it's getting hard to believe that you aren't making false claims knowingly. — kwami (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Denying that the claim has been made is a bit odd. JorisvS (never mind they call it a policy) has said exactly that. You said as much when you stated "No-one's arguing that they shouldn't be at FOOs, just that per the guideline they shouldn't be at FOO." Other statements you made that support it are "Our previous consensus, that neither should be accorded primary status, was an attempt to avoid such problems." and "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't.". Now I might have misunderstood some of your remarks, my remark was misunderstood and I should have been clearer, User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Wording use in a close, but like BHG I can only go by what I see. Added to that are moves like this and this. The second from the common name to one made up and, certainly at the time, did not exist outside of Misplaced Pages has no basis in any guideline. Anyway if you think I am deliberately lying then you best report it at WP:ANI. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've closed a number of these recent discussions, I figured I'd offer my observations. First, it seems clear that there's an emerging consensus that peoples should generally be considered the primary topic over their languages, and should generally be at the base name, barring there being other ambiguous articles or some other reason to disambiguate both. It's true that many or most articles on ethnicities (especially indigenous peoples in the Americas) conform to the current guidelines as written, but that's largely driven by editors making moves to conform to the guidelines. It seems to be quite rare that an article starting at "Nacirema" is moved to "Nacirema tribe" after a discussion or consensus.

Additionally, though many of these moves have been for Canadian peoples, it doesn't appear that Canada is an "exception" to the previous guideline, as some previous attempts at updates have said. RMs for American peoples have largely followed the same trend, and the practice has been established at any number of articles even before these new discussions. Some high profile examples I've seen from various parts of the country include Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Potawatomi, Sioux, Ojibwe, Shoshone, Comanche, and Hopi. Additionally, Muscogee was long a redirect to Muscogee people (I've since moved the article as unnecessary disambiguation), while others like Seminole and Apache as there is no competing language. The list at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and the guideline's wording indicate that this practice is widespread in other areas as well.
If my observations are correct and the consensus is shifting, it definitely needs to be addressed in the text of the guidelines.--Cúchullain /c 19:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd said Canada and the US, not just Canada. I don't see this happening elsewhere in the world, but Skookum denies that. It may be that we instead have a discrepancy between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, but you've denied that. If people agree that Russian should be about the people, and similarly other European and Asian nations, then I would agree, but so far we either seem to have separate conventions for Anglo-America and the rest of the world, or for aboriginal and non-aboriginal nations. But I agree that if we don't either move European nations to the root name, or undo your recent moves and move American nations back to a dab, and if people are good with this, then we should spell out in the guideline that we have two parallel conventions. I mean, compare

German

with

Cherokee (disambiguation)

That's clearly inconsistent. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Pfffft. So undoing a few dozen RMs where consensus did not agree with your insistence that the "people" dab is mandatory, is what you want to do? What's inconsistent is you and your wordgames and equivocation about the "rest of the world" (where you also did a host of undiscussed moves as yet unaddressed by RM) is groundless; the "FOO people" problem is all over european titles and categories (not all of your doing, though many are). As Cuchulainn observes there is a consensus that the people are t he necessary primarytopic; your claim that language is equally primary as a topic have been shown to be comlpetely baseless, as view stats and google results in RM after RM after RM have shown (other than in Modoc where I did not have time to add them, and was blocked from doing so before I could). Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Quoting from Cuchulainn's close of Tlingit in moving it to its original title, which it had had for years until you messed with it:

"

The result of the move request was: Move. While support for this move was less clear than at other similar RMs recently, supporters were still more numerous, and had stronger arguments. The stronger oppose votes from JorisvS and In ictu oculi referred to the WP:NCL guideline, which has traditionally recommended disambiguating both ethnic groups and their languages. However, they did not address the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concern, specifically the page view evidence and the fact that Tlingit already redirects to this article, and has for almost all of the three years since the page was moved to Tlingit people. As such, the invocations of the article titles policy (which trumps the guidelines) by several of the supporters become even more compelling. This, taken with what seems to be an emerging consensus that peoples are generally primary topics over their languages, leads me to find a consensus for this move. " He has said similar in other RMs; those like Haida people and Modoc people will eventually follow suit despite the shallow and hostile closures/not moveds there. Others who have closed similar RMs such as BDD have said similar things.Skookum1 (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, the idea that there is consistency across Misplaced Pages for naming and that this is confined only to North America is easy to disprove. We have Russians, Germans, Danes (Eurasia), Bonans, Dongxiangs (China), Chagossians, Banyaruguru, Battakhin, Ganguela (Africa), Diaguita, Mapuche (South America), Alyawarre, Adnyamathanha, Amarak (Australia). I don't really see the need to try and force a "one size fits all" to every group and language. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 19:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

CBW, you really don't seem to be paying attention. I've explained the error you're making to you several times now, and you still don't see it. You just gave several examples that support my point. In fact, I used two of those very examples (Russians, Germans) in making my point above! Please read things before responding to them.

As for not needing to be consistent in following the naming conventions, as you suggest, sure, if that's what people want. But we should make that explicit so we don't confuse people who think our naming conventions are meant to be followed. — kwami (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

the only person confused and/or trying to confuse, Kwami, is you. Attempts to fix the guideline to make it conform to TITLE and other policies were resisted by you with equivocation, and reversion. And note, the "FOOs" forms are often for "people who are German" and not for the ethnic group as a whole; also most indigenous ethnic group names are both singular and plural (e.g. there is no plural form of "St'at'imc" in English).Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, you seem to be missing the point that the guidelines are being followed. These are given as ""Elbonian people" , "Ethnic Elbonians", "Elbonians" and "Elbonian" are all acceptable. Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group." (I've posted this before). So there is nothing wrong with having Russians, Amarak, Buno people or Ethnic Japanese (that's a disambiguation because most of the "Ethnic Foo" seem to be redirects). So the the guideline already allows for inconsistency. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

But we're not talking about that guideline, we're talking about this one. This one says that both the people and the language should be disambiguated, with the root article being a dab. That is clearly not the same thing as only the language article being disambiguated, with the root article being used for the people.

We shouldn't say one thing and do another. That's simply dishonest, or at best incoherent. — kwami (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what this guideline should say and what you don't want it to say are two entirely different things.09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, oh shuffler of hyphens and endashes and special apostrophes, about being "dishonest"....... and your ideas are not coherent, as so often in the past; "that guideline" unlike "yours" is based on TITLE which is a POLICY that your guideline has never been "coherent" in addressing....and dishonest in resisting change by "any means necessary".... using the royal "we" when you mean yourself and your creation of "This one says that both the people and the language should be disambiguated, with the root article being a dab.". That's WHY this guideline is wrong and must be brought into line with TITLE and the consensus that we all know now is that "the people are the primarytopic" and people articles do not take a dab unless absolutely necessary per CONCISISENESS and PRECISION (per WP:AT). Your insistence that languages are equally primary is just not borne out by sources of view stats or anything. Only your refusal to acknowledge consensus instead of constantly trying to overturn it by obfuscation and obstinacy is disruptive and t tendentious and also very, very, very boring.Skookum1 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The major difference I can see between North American peoples and European ones is that that "Cherokee", "Choctaw", etc. are also plural nouns in English, referring to the people as a whole, while "German" and "Russian" are not. Additionally, "German" and "Russian" material also appears in the articles on Germany and Russia. As such there may be greater ambiguity with "German" and "Russian" than with "Choctaw". At any rate it may be better to just remove the wording here that says disambiguating both is "preferred", since that doesn't appear to be the consensus. If necessary it could just say something along the lines of, "if there are articles on both an ethnic group and the language they speak, and neither is the primary topic, disambiguate both according to the disambiguation guidelines" and leave the prescriptive wording out of it entirely.--Cúchullain /c 18:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though there is also "Cherokees" and "Choctaws". Hey, they don't even set off my spell checker. And conflated singular/plural names like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Irish, Welsh, Chinese, Burmese, Thai, Nepali, Yoruba, Swahili, Zulu, Malay, Maori, etc. are all dab pages.

Your suggestion is actually the problem the guideline is intended to prevent. Last time we went over this, people didn't *want* to try to decide which was the primary topic. They expected that would lead to endless arguments and end up being a huge waste of time. And hey, look at this, an interminable argument and waste of time!

So, like it or not, we currently appear to have two parallel conventions: One for aboriginal America (and maybe Australia too, or something along those lines) and one for most of the rest of the world. We can formalize that, change it, or do what we have been, deny it. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"we currently appear to have two parallel conventions" That's purely an original research claim and not borne out by an examination of titles, and not asserted anywhere but by you.Skookum1 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Cherokees", "Choctaws", etc. are usually uncontroversial redirects to the peoples' article, wherever it's located. In these cases the unpluralized group noun is preferred for reasons specific to the subject.

Again, with "German", "Russian", etc, I expect they're seen as additionally ambiguous as there are articles on the countries in addition to the nationality and the language. I just don't think that's a convincing reason to treat Cherokee as if it's not the primary topic when the evidence suggests it is.

And as I said, it's true many articles are arranged as the guideline (currently) recommends, but this is highly driven by editors like yourself moving them around to conform to the guidelines. I've rarely seen it happen through discussion. Even still, exceptions are easily found in ethnic/ethnolinguistic groups around the world. Anglo-Norman, Khoisan, Busoga, Aztec; in addition Arab, Tuareg, Vlach, Celt, Inca, Goidel, and Slav are redirects to the peoples' article. Consensus for the guideline's current wording isn't nearly as strong as it's being presented.--Cúchullain /c 15:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

After several days with no response, I went ahead and made the change. The previous wording was out of step with WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anyway.--Cúchullain /c 22:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted, as contrary to the existing consensus and with no new consensus.

Your arguments may no sense. The countries are not called "Russian" and "German", and there is no "Arab", "Slav", "Inca", or "Goidel" language. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is, however, consensus to use primary topics here. If the people is the primary topic for the base name (without "people"), it can be placed at the base name if that's otherwise the best title for it. If the language is the primary topic for the base name (without "language"), it can be placed at the base name if that's otherwise the best title for it. The examples in the description of that consensus might need to be changed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please show me that consensus. Last time we discussed this, we had consensus for just the opposite. — kwami (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing Uyvsdi, JHunterJ, CBWeather, Skookum1, WilliamThweatt and I in support of allowing for primary topics where they exist. Kwamikagami opposes. Sounds like a consensus.--Cúchullain /c 02:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Cúchullain, please strike my name from your list. If you re-read my comments above, I am strongly against making either language or people articles primary and the weeks of further time-wasting arguing at each and every language/people article that could ensue. My position is that, for the sake of consistency, all people/language articles should be "Foo people" and "Foo language" with neither being primary and a dab page at "Foo". It's plain, simple, logical, and easy for both writer and reader.--William Thweatt 04:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't *make* a language or people article primary; you follow the protocols set down at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to determine which is primary. As someone who uses as well as edits Misplaced Pages, finding unnecessary dab pages is annoying, especially when every language article and every ethnic group article should link to each other. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

And when the MOSTCOMMON use of the terms is the noun-form, having to type ] is a waste of time and bandwidth. The syntactical duality of "FOO people" and its two possible meanings (in BC and other areas, three as town/region names are often derived from the peoples) you are by now, um, well-acquainted with, huh?Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you frame it in a false dichotomy where one of two articles must, by default, be primary, then yes, that would be true. But there exists the third option wherein neither is primary. With that option on the table, then we would indeed be "making" one the primary topic on Misplaced Pages. As far as your "unnecessary dab pages.." comment, the dab page is necessary for consistency. If you find one extra mouse click and the fraction of a second it takes for a page to load "annoying", perhaps you are too easily annoyed (a friendly jest, no offense intended). Others may find it annoying to search "Khmu" and get the "Khmu people" article when they were looking for the Khmu language article and the have to either search again for Khmu language or look for a link on the people page (there's no guarantee that a hatnote will get placed on every "primary" article). Also annoying would be to search for Lao and get the Lao people page (assuming that would be made primary) and then click on hatnote that in all probability would end up pointing to the existing Lao dab page anyway and then clicking on the Lao language link to get what you wanted. All of these "annoying" possible permutations can be avoided by adopting a simple, consistent pattern across the whole of WP's language/people articles: "Foo language", "Foo people", "Foo" = dab.--William Thweatt 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"If you frame it in a false dichotomy where one of two articles must, by default, be primary" - there is no such false dichotomy, other than the one fictionalized by the author of the passage in question; view stats and incoming links demonstrate PRIMARYTOPIC quite readily; "FOO " titles are inherently derived from "FOO" titles and therefore are implicitly secondary as topics. being derivations named for the people(s).Skookum1 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, William.--Cúchullain /c 04:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cuchullain, and no worries, mate.--William Thweatt 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is a consensus that naming conventions should follow WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and we're now seeing a clear trend to prefer those over the wording of this guideline. When a lower-tier guideline disagrees with widely accepted policies and guidelines, guess which one is out of step?

Consensus that PRIMARYTOPIC matters for these articles has become very clear in the recent RMs, and it's come through already at articles like the ones I named. The point with "German", "Russian", "Chinese", etc. is that it's easy to see someone typing those words looking for info that's better covered at the article on Germany, Russia or China, and thus the terms are more ambiguous than "Cherokee". And there certainly are languages that people search for as "Arab", "Inca" and "Slav", and redirects exist. Not to mention articles on Celtic languages, Anglo-Norman language, Khoisan languages, Tuareg language, etc., which you seem to have missed.--Cúchullain /c 16:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

People might look for "Germany language", "Africa language", or "Earth language" too, but does that mean that we should turn Germany, Africa, and Earth into dab pages?

Even if people did that, which they probably wouldn't, "Germany", "Africa" and "Earth" are obvious primary topics of those terms.--Cúchullain /c 02:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the guideline. It's supposed to show consensus, and that requires us to actually have consensus. Several people have expressed concerns about endless debates over whether the language or the people are the primary topic, and we don't care – languages can just be at "language" regardless, unless it's something obvious like Esperanto or proto-Indo-European. If the people at the ethnicity project want to have such debates, they can knock themselves out, but people here appear to want to be left out of it. — kwami (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Please stop edit warring over the guideline"..... if I had coffee going, I would have spat it out, and am too tired in today's heat here to guffaw. "people here appear to want to be left out of it." - meaning you and those who are here other than the few who endorsed your changes to NCL want to be left out of policy-related decision-making; and there are not "endless debates over whether the language or the people are the primary topic" other than the ones you keep on making; who are those "several people"? What about the people who commented on the RMs you tried to shut down or delay or otherwise mess with? They don't count? Of course not, you just want to "be left out of it", and not have to account with or reckon for AT or any other policy or guideline, while at the same time inveigling on people articles even though this guideline is not about peoples but only languages.Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that you have reverted twice and me once I think it would be you that is edit warring. Currently there is no consensus that "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language." By the way I like your "we don't care" remark. You do understand that anybody is allowed to use the talk pages not just the few people that came up with the older consensus? If you don't care then why are you so insistent on that particular wording? Frankly it is totally ridiculous to have a guideline that conflicts not only with the polices already mentioned but also with Misplaced Pages#Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD if you're not clear on how to establish consensus when your proposals are rejected. It's not up to the rejecter to to disprove your argument. William Thweatt has summed it up well above. Others have said the same thing in recent discussions. You simply don't have consensus to implement your POV. BTW, we agreed with ethnicities and tribes until that was changed recently. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

One editor reverting all changes isn't consensus. I suppose we could start an RfC, but that shouldn't be necessary when the consensus is already clear and the current wording conflicts with more established policies and guidelines.--Cúchullain /c 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And conflicts with its own lede. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is a consensus that agrees with the introductory paragraph of this convention for naming languages (the extent of the scope of this convention). This convention does not govern how ethnic groups are named and has to comply with the established Misplaced Pages-wide guidelines at wp:primarytopic and wp:twodabs. Any suggestions about naming of ethnic groups needs to take place at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), not here. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As for the lead, that's meant to be clarified in the body. As we've practiced it, the consensus is that language articles are only at FOO when the name is practically unambiguous, as Esperanto, or so predominantly about the language that there's little likelihood of confusion, as Latin. We precisely do not want to start arguing over whether the primary topic of "Russian" is the language or the people, despite the fact that the dab at that page fails TWODABS as much as many of the dabs we've recently been arguing over. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And the shorthand for that practice is: when there's no primary topic, put a dab at the base name. When there's a primary topic (language, ethnic group, or other), put it at the base name and link the other article or the dab page in a hatnote. Two-item dabs at the base name when there's no primary topic do not fail WP:TWODABS (although some members of the dab project have misinterpreted or misapplied it in those instances). If their error is what's caused consternation here in the past, we can try to address that here too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people trying to force a decision has been the main problem. If we can clarify here that a dab is acceptable with just the people and their language, that would be wonderful. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that is isn't acceptable, because it goes against WP:Twodabs. Between two articles, there is almost always a primary topic. Russian has 14 links, so that disambiguation page serves a real purpose for actual Misplaced Pages users trying to find information. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That's the misreading of WP:TWODABS. Between two articles, there may or may not be a primary topic. WP:TWODABS has been used to justify a "pick one, it doesn't matter which" approach to avoid having a base-name dab with only two entries, but it doesn't actually say that. The primary topic criteria isn't changed based on the number of ambiguous entries, two or two hundred. When there's no Misplaced Pages coverage for an ethnic group (and no other topics), there's no reason for "Base name" to redirect to "Base name language". When there's no Misplaced Pages coverage for a language (and no other topics), there's no reason for "Base name" to redirect to "Base name people". When there is Misplaced Pages coverage for both a language and an ethnic group, if one of them is the primary topic it should get the base name, and if neither is the primary topic, the base name should be a disambiguation page, even for just the two entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

break

No one has the "pick one, it doesn't matter which" approach. The protocols for selecting a primary topic are based on the following (directly cut-and-pasted from WP:Primarytopic):

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Misplaced Pages article traffic statistics or Wiki ViewStats traffic statistics
• Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches (NOTE: adding &pws=0 to the Google search string eliminates personal search bias)

If these were perfectly equal or even close, there would be an argument for a dab page, but those instances are extremely rare.

Looking at "Makah," which triggered this discussion, I have to go through nine screens of Google Book results referring to Makah people to find a single reference to Makah language. In the March (prior to the move that prompted many page lookers), Makah people was viewed 4,232 times and has 123 incoming links from articles (not user or other talk pages), while Makah language had 412 views and has 30 incoming articles. So there is very clearly a primary topic. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Editors have had the "pick one, it doesn't matter which" approach. As I said (and you seem to be agreeing here), the criteria for determining if there's a primary topic don't change for two topics. The only thing we might disagree on is w*doeshether the instances of there being no primary topic among two ambiguous topics are "extremely rare". But it shouldn't matter for this discussion -- the rarity of one result or another doesn't need to be referenced in the guidelines. A two-element dab for a language and ethnic group is acceptable if there is no primary topic, as is a language at the base name if it's the primary (or only) topic, as is the ethnic group at the base name if it's the primary (or only) topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying the determination for choosing primary topic are the protocols explicitly spelled out in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It *does* matter; the goal is to get users the information for which they are searching. Regarding language being the base name when it's the primary and only topic, yes, that already happens, i.e. Wichí Lhamtés Nocten or Ayapa Zoque. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Why does the rarity (or lack of rarity) of primary topics matter in getting users to the articles sought? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, and fact of the matter is that most articles were begun without dabs, and most still are undabbed; this was the case even before the en masse no-consenus/discussion moves to add "people" to them, which are now in most cases reverted.Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Re. your Russian example, sure, there are 14 links, but most of them are irrelevant, because they either aren't called "Russian", or not something someone would expect to find under "Russian". I could make a dab page for Makah that has nearly as many links:

• Makah people
• Makah language
• Makah Reservation
• Makah Air Force Station
• Makah Museum
• Makah Bay
• Makah Marina
• Ashraf Makah
• Ha-Makah Hashmonim V'Echad
• Makkah

Now, why is it that Russian should be a dab page, but Makah shouldn't? Why are we treating tribal/aboriginal peoples differently than Europeans? Is it because they aren't as important?

Or take Cherokee (disambiguation), which has almost 50 links. This has nothing to do with TWODABS. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You manage to avoid admitting that Cherokee is a standalone title and, other than starting off in the plural form, always has been.....like hundreds of others you never got time to add "people" to.Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we're treating them differently because the Makah people are the primary topic of "Makah", while the Russian people aren't the primary topic of "Russian".

I'd be happy if we could just remove the prescriptivist language from this guideline. As with any article it should be clear that if there's a primary topic, it can go at the base name; if there's no primary topic, all ambiguous titles are disambiguated. I'd even be fine throwing in the bone that if there's no primary topic, a dab page is preferable, though this is already covered at WP:DAB, even at WP:TWODABS. But we definitely shouldn't be acting like there's never a primary topic in these articles just to force consistency.--Cúchullain /c 21:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate the view stats that were on the Makah RM, which you closed

• "Makah people" was viewed 4020 times this month (March)
• "Makah language" was viewed 398 times
• "Makah", which was the original title for the people article, was viewed 240 times]

I haven't time to run through Kwami's list of dab topics, but other than those derived from the name of this people, or terms from foreign languages, there is no other possible PRIMARYTOPIC... the Makah (disambiguation) page exists, though with only a few items at this point.Skookum1 (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Russians are just as much the primary topic of Russian as the Makah people are the primary topic of Makah. Arguing that Europeans are somehow fundamentally different than Americans strikes me as being obtuse.

The precedent established by the high-traffic articles of the Old World, such as English, French, Japanese, etc, is that we don't pick one over the other. The proposal here is that, for the Americas (or perhaps for aboriginal or tribal peoples the world over), we need to fight it out over which gets top billing. That makes very little sense to me, and several editors have stated that they don't want to waste their time with such debates. There is such thing as common sense in applying our guidelines, and it's common sense that people should be treated as people. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a Makah (disambiguation), and Makah people is still the primary topic for Makah (as determined by quantifiable criteria). I would love to stop wasting time by having this discussion conclude. WP:Primarytopic protocols are Misplaced Pages-wide, so this convention doesn't get to override them, and there is no consensus to attempt to do so. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Right. Primary topic-ness isn't an award for importance, and it's not an award to the best fighting editor. It's a navigational tool, to assist reader in getting to the article(s) they seek. It's possible for Russian to be a dab page and Makah not to be. The several editors who don't want to waste their time debating primary topic-ness would not be compelled to debate it when it comes up. No violations of common sense occur. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I find the argument pretty strange that prescriptive disambiguation for all ethnic groups protects the Makah et al from being treated differently, as it just forces their articles to conform to standards set by "high-traffic articles of the Old World". Especially as we've established that exceptions exist even among high traffic articles of the Old World. Forcing readers through hoops to find articles isn't common sense.--Cúchullain /c 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No-one is saying that Makah can't be treated differently, only that we shouldn't demand that it be treated differently. And no, you have not established exceptions among high-traffic articles of the Old World, as your claimed "exceptions" are not exceptions at all. And yes, I agree: Forcing readers through hoops, such as by not providing a dab page for the article they're looking for, isn't common sense. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No one's "demanding" Makah or any other article being treated differently. We're saying we shouldn't demand it be treated in only one specific way against typical policy and common sense.--Cúchullain /c 16:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as we're at a bit of a standstill I'm going to take a stab at some new wording, as the majority of editors who've weighed in deem it necessary. How about:

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, and neither is the primary topic, disambiguate both according to the disambiguation guidelines. The language's article should be disambiguated by adding "language" as a suffix, as in English language. See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) on disambiguating articles on peoples and ethnic groups. A disambiguation page containing both articles (and other ambiguous articles) should be placed at the base name.

It's worth pointing out that this isn't the guideline that's meant to discuss whether and how to disambiguate peoples - that's at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), and it doesn't claim mandatory disambiguation for ethnic groups is preferred, let alone required. A change like this will bring the language guideline into line with that one, with WP:AT, with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and with its own lead. If this wording is agreeable to most editors I'll add it in shortly.--Cúchullain /c 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Couple of points:
  • "Where a common name exists in English" - some clarity is needed, as that has two meanings/readings. Is it meant that they have a name in common in English, or that they have name that is common in English? It comes off as both, and can be used/read that way. When the people name is a noun and regularly occurs in English without "people" attached to it (in fact, such names get used in their Misplaced Pages articles and ones where they are linked/mentioned without the "people" modifier, as a read of any of the major ethno articles will readily show, and also the websites of the peoples themselves, and media coverage, and so on. How they use their names, and how the world around them (including governments and media and their neighbours) use it is what matters; not what a compromise forged over a[REDACTED] guideline says; that's not per self-identification/MOS:IDENTITY.
    
  • So if a people name is regularly used in English without the "people" disambiguation that is it's "common use"; imposing "people" can be both inaccurate as well as OR; and has that "people who are FOO" problem that I seem to be the only one addressing here. I think it's needed to state "disambiguation if necessary" directly, rather than suggest that the people article has to be disambiguated; and the state of NCET is what it is for now; there was a little edit war there too, y'know, and BHG indicated that she felt that my editing it was somehow a suspect activity, rather than a reflection of the consensus which you yourself observed (and was called a "paranoid conspiracy theory" on a CANVASS in WikiProject Languages - , ).
    
  • Many language names, such as Halkomelem, are common in English now; that happens to have had "language" dabbed on it since it was created, but it's really not needed; Lushootseed if it has a dab now, didn't used to; there's others, too many to list, of this kind of thing; in one discussion somewhere it seemed like one of the commentors thought Halkomelem was a people.....
    
  • the "new" consensus that you and CWB and I have observed, and others, is actually the "old" consensus that existed for years before a host of articles had, in the course of months, "people" added to their titles, often creating only a redirect back upon itself; and only partway through that was NCL changed, and lobbying to add "preferred" to what became NCET began at NCP, and the unproven and rather obviously wrong that the "people" dab was "unambiguous", which is most certainly is not. *The old, so-called, as it's really the original, consensus, "said" that if a dab was needed/necessary, then "people" was preferred over "tribe" or "nation" or "", unless the title or cat name was for a federally-registered/recognized capital-T tribe in the US: that dab would not be used in Canada, though it does occur in some band government names e.g. Cowichan Tribes and as terminology for the subgroups of the Kwakwaka'wakw.
  • I'm almost done my notes on the "old" consensus, which to me is being restored by all those RMs, and by those people here who are advocating changes to fit policy, which this guideline had not done, not since it was changed to fit/justify moves that had already taken place without discussion, and would continue ... including imposing now-reverted "anglicisms" and "colonialist" names on long-standing "self-identification titles".
    
  • I really don't think this discussion is at a standstill at all; what we have is the person who changed this guideline to suit himself after a show of hands refusing to acknowledge that the guideline in its current state is not in line with policy, and who pretends people making very clear sense, here and in the RMs he tried to shut down, are talking nonsense. And he creates/fabricates interpolations about indigenous titles vs others and between North America than elsewhere, claiming others have said it, when they haven't said anything of the kind (including by inference yourself on more than one occasion). His comments in response to points by others are as if policy were nonsense, and his preference should trump policy, and he's even said we should just all go away and let him have this guideline to himself (or "us", as he puts it). This is not a personal attack, it's an account of what we've all ready, and what we've seen.
    
  • Our discussion, the one between yourself, me, CBW, JHunterJ, and Uyvsdi, has made on whole lot of a sense; the "standstill" is coming from someone who is point-blank claiming OWNership of this guideline, and is WP:NOTHERE. Denying and thwarting or resisting content goes back a long ways, as does the assertion of personal preferences over facts and citations, even in a close, as in here; which like last year's native RMs, took way to long to get done and never should have been necessary anyway; how it ended, as also with last year's St'at'imc and sister RMs, and this year's like Dakelh and Wuikinuxv and Shishalh, going to the official sources and the google results and view stats; time-delaying muddle, all to deal with needless changes by someone imposing a perception of a guideline across the board without thinking, and without real knowledge of the subject; in that case an endash over a hyphen, in this case about insisting that an ethno article has to have a "people" dab on it, even if that's not how the terms are commonly used in English.
    
  • I'd have liked to keep this short, but there are problems with your suggestion; one is that it's a needless compromise with someone who has said baldly he doesn't want to compromise, and that we can take our invocations of policy and go somewhere else and leave him alone here with what he seems to think is "his" guideline..... Really? Is that "how Misplaced Pages works"? I'll get back to work on the account of the "old" consensus' points, and get around to answer CJLippert at the other guideline.
    
  • There's a big difference between being at a standstill, and getting out of the car to move the rock that's blocking the road.Skookum1 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The "common name in English" bit is already in the current wording. Obviously, it refers to cases where there is one WP:COMMONNAME in English for both the people and their language. When neither is the primary topic, as in Chinese, Russian, etc., both need to be disambiguated. Mostly, my suggested wording is designed to remove the prescriptive claim that virtually all titles need to be disambiguated, even if there is a primary topic. If you have suggestions on how to make it clearer, I'm all ears.

If the language is the primary topic, like Latin, it doesn't need to be disambiguated. The first paragraph already makes this clear.

The wording may be a compromise, but it doesn't say anything that conflicts with the established policies and guidelines or the emerging consensus. It's a net benefit IMO.--Cúchullain /c 16:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There are parts I like, but I have some reservations.

"Where ... neither is the primary topic" is iffy, because of past petty and time-wasting arguments trying to establish a primary topic when the distinction is at best marginal. Could we say 'clear primary topic', or something along those lines?

"Disambiguate both according to the disambiguation guidelines": Could that mean turning both into dab pages for yet other names? I wonder how that would play out.

"The language's article should be disambiguated by adding 'language' as a suffix": First, 'language' is not a suffix. Second, 'language' is not always the appropriate disambiguator, just as 'people' isn't always the best disambiguator for ethnic articles.

— kwami (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Where ... neither is the primary topic" is necessary. "Clear primary topic" just relocates the discussion to what "counts" as clear, and that discussion is the same for all primary topics, not particular to peoples and languages. The only participants in the discussions on primary topics or clear primary topics are the ones who choose to be there, so no time is wasted of editors who don't want to waste it. If "Foo language" and "Foo people" are each ambiguous and neither has a primary topic, they would each be dabs, yes. "language" in "English language" is not a grammatical suffix, but is still a suffix. We can call it something else. I'd avoid calling it a disambiguator, since that's even less defined than the second definition of suffix. If there are other factors in choosing titles for non-primary-topic articles on languages, beyond appending "language", we should record those here. What are those? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Language" is an ambiguous term. See the last section.

You said, The only participants in the discussions on primary topics .. are the ones who choose to be there, so no time is wasted of editors who don't want to waste it. That's sophistry. You may not want a page to be moved, but the only way to prevent it from being moved is to waste your time by engaging in a debate over whether 'Foo people' or 'Foo language' is marginally more primary. Several editors have already commented on this point, and this has been our consensus for years: Unless a language is obviously the primary topic, such as Esperanto or Latin, we have it as 'Foo language', except for cases where the word 'language' is problematic, such as varieties of Chinese. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Many terms are ambiguous and are still used in titles. There is no sophistry; if you don't care about the title of the article, you don't waste your time; if you do care, the time spent isn't wasted. That's how Misplaced Pages works. We don't skip discussions that some editors want to treat are foregone conclusions when they're not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nor try to shut them down so they don't happen (need I link the bulk RMs and the dozens where this was attempted?), nor engage in non sequiturs and calling white black, alleging that others talking policy and statistics are "spouting nonsense" and any one of a half-dozen NPAs that have been used to that effect ("paranoid conspiracy theory" in a CANVASS about this discussion on WP:Languages, "no one would ever think to call you rational" etc); whatever it's all the same game; similar was tried on last year's endonym RMs and failed, just as (for the most part) it failed on this year's RMs 19 times out of 20. To hear someone who regularly engages in sophistry say others are using sophistry for talking about primarytopics, when the individual saying that claims primary topics without ever demonstrating even once his assertions are true....... is just all really repetitive. The edit/reversion war here is just 'more of the same'. In RMs, "consensus" has come to mean "majority of votes"; not really how it's supposed to be, but if the same method were applied here, there's already a consensus, with one very obstinate dissenter who has told us all out right to go away and leave him here alone with this guideline. Sure, he has a couple of supporters who espouse a preference, but preferences do not trump policy; nor should a "veto of one", when that veto of one engages in NPAs and AGFs and regularly twists what others are saying, or pretends it's "nonsense" or, now, perhaps having consulted a thesaurus realizing he's used "nonsense" a few times to many, "sophistry". What you said JHunterJ is NOT sophistry; I really don't think the person throwing that term around really understands what it means; yet it surely is an apt description for his own activities words here, on NCET, in last year's RMs, and also in this year's. I'm supposed to talk about issues/contents and not about editors, but that's very hard not to do when the same editor keeps on trotting out the same kind of useless non-argument to stonewall and bluster to prevent the proper application of policy to revert the changes he pretty much unilaterally made...."we made a decision" he says, as if a show of half-hearted hands on this guideline talkpage was "we" and he hadn't coached that proposal and the "vote" that took place......TITLE was voted on too, by a lot more people than those who "voted" here.Skookum1 (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly helpful Skookum, please stay on topic. For my part, Like JHunterJ, I'd object to adding "clear primary topic"; there's either a primary topic or there's not. Folks can and do argue about that regardless of what this guideline says. I don't care about changing the word "suffix"; I chose it because that's what's used in the intro and it appears to be correctly used. It could just as easily be "disambiguated by adding 'language' after the name". And yes, if there are cases where something should be used besides "language" they should certainly listed (probably in a different paragraph from this one) and the introduction should be updated.--Cúchullain /c 12:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

After no further comment for nearly a week I've added the new wording again per the discussion. I made slight changes to address the concerns that have been brought up. Specifically I avoided the term "suffix" and said that "language" is "typically" used; as J and I have said, if there are other methods they can and should be listed here, probably in the next paragraph.--Cúchullain /c 15:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored the wording mentioning WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as it's pretty clear that should be in there, and there's been no compelling argument against including it on the talk page. I also restored a few other minor changes to avoid WP:INTDAB problems; these should be uncontroversial and again, no reason for removing them has been offered on the talk page. I left the other material (and recent tags) in the wording, hopefully we'll get consensus on that and we can proceed with positive changes.--Cúchullain /c 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Just so it is quite clear. I am in full agreement with the changes made by Cuchullain (talk · contribs) despite what was insinuated on my talk page. I have also removed the disputed tag as I no longer disagree with the statements in the guideline. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Another example

See Talk:Parnkala_language#Silliness for more applications of this problem. There's no ambiguity for "Parnkala", and before I moved it Parnkala didn't exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's ambiguity. The Parnkala are the people. Our article even speaks of the Parnkala community. The Parnkala language is the language of the Parnkala people. It's a common-enough pattern.

You spoke of primary topics above. I'd like to know how you determined that the language is the primary topic of the name. In your edit summary you ref'd this convention, when it's the opposite of this convention.

This is exactly the kind of thing people have said, again and again, that they want to avoid. It's an illustration of what I said above: That changing the naming conventions for languages against the old consensus is going to result in a huge waste of time for everyone involved.

However, since you insist this is not a waste of time, please provide a full review of the literature, showing this to be the primary topic. All spelling variants should be taken into account. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're the one wasting time by turning everything anyone who doesn't see it your way as author (WP:OWNer) of the passage in question. A "full review of the literature" means fields wider than your own i.e. linguistics, when it comes to proper and normal usages for peoples. It was your "literature" that somehow told you, or led you to decide, that peoples and their languages were equally primary topics, which is not borne out by evidence or, in fact, by the simple noun/adjective comparison of FOO vs "FOO people/language". And I had to laugh when I saw " That changing the naming conventions for languages against the old consensus is going to result in a huge waste of time for everyone involved."..... the old consensus BEFORE you rewrote NCL in your own image was pretty much the same as what all the rest of us have arrived at through RMs based on policy. To whit, that the peoples were the primary topics, that native-preferred names (the ones you so abhor because they're not in your own narrow range of "literature") would be used, especially when at conflict with geographic adaptations of same (Lillooet/St'at'imc sound familiar to you??) and that if a language name exists in English that is different from a people name, it would be used; unnecessary disambiguation was unwanted. WE in the days of the REAL "old consensus" thought across a wide range of fields and concerns....not just linguistics.

Even before you used your personal rewrite of this guideline to foist hundreds (or as you put it in one RM oppose vote, "thousands") of titles without any discussion whatsoever (other than the little closed one here, but certainly not on any talkpage of any of the affected items, few of which you have done anything else with but fiddle with their names), you had already moved lots of them on your own say-so (I've been making a list, checking it twice...). As for "since you insist this is not a waste of time, please provide a full review of the literature, showing this to be the primary topic", where is YOUR citation that languages and peoples are equally primary topics, so often heard here and in RMs....WHERE??. And as for primary topics, RM after RM after RM have shown the people titles to be the PRIMARYTOPICs: it seems in the case of the language item JHunterJ raised here, that there is no other use for the name; i.e. no people-name. So what primary topic are you the blazes talking about? Laughable that you call other people's logics and guideline/policy readings/citations and actual examples "nonsense" and "sophistry" when that's all you ever do yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• A full review of the relevant literature showing all of the meanings of "Parnkala" on Misplaced Pages:. Number of topics represented: 1. Amount of ambiguity: 0. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  You do know that WP is not considered a RS for WP, don't you? Anyway, the number of topics represented is 2, ambiguity 100%. — kwami (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  LOL, more nitpickery; such searches are often used in determining PRIMARYTOPIC.... you have yet to provide a source from the "full literature" yourself and ignore the points others make (see below). Not the first time you've engaged in such tactics, of course.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  And actually, WP is exactly the source for WP ambiguity. You do know that (external) references aren't used in disambiguation, don't you? Anyway, the number of topics represented was 1, the language. There are no WP references to the people as "Parnkala". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That approach is unencyclopedic, and has been rejected more than once. Readers should find articles on the topics they're looking for, not something else just because we haven't gotten around to creating the appropriate articles yet. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That approach was used in the course of resolving the RMs that you still won't acknowledge as proof of the consensus you are trying to resist here; as were incoming links and view stats and other Misplaced Pages-based evidence. When are you going to stop claiming no one else is making sense and only you are (and you're not)?Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just curious but why are the people called the Parnkalla and the language Parnkala. If they are spelt differently then there is no need for the "language" and "people". CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 00:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  Yep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  There's no distinction. They're just variant transcriptions. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  So the solution is to use the same transcription for both, instead of using variant transcriptions? Fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. The page move was blocked by the existing rd. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The news that someone here speaks Parnkalla well enough to be able to state that there is no distinction between pronunciation between the two spellings is indeed remarkable. Or is there a citation from that? Or just say-so?Skookum1 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In the very least, it shows how broken the previous method was. Readers should expect to find information on Parnkala when they type in "Parnkala", or in the very least a helpful disambiguation page directing them to the right places if the name is ambiguous. This error would already have been discovered if editors were following the usual disambiguation guidelines.--Cúchullain /c 15:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not the previous method, it's the current method, and readers would find the article, as should be obvious to anyone who's ever looked for anything on WP. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It was you who didn't follow existing disambiguation guidelines and practices when you went whole-hog adding "language" and especially "people" to articles without even looking at them.Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This change, which I reverted for what are obvious reasons to the rest of us (Cuchullain, CBW, JHunterJ) was not consensual and restored the wrong statement that people articles must be disambiguated, which is contrary to the dominant consensus here and which has been demonstrated by PRIMARYTOPIC and TITLE-based RMs beyond count (actually I'm working on the count and will post it shortly).Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought Skookum was contenting himself with trolling discussion pages, but now he's gumming up the guideline as well. Reverted to the last stable version. (Most of Cuchullain's changes were fine.) — kwami (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

what a waste of time. Do we really need to debate which is PRIMARYTOPIC every time? Why can't we stick 'language' and 'people' to the titles of each when they're synonymous and be done with it? What's the harm in doing that? — lfdder 04:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's Cuchullain's intent, but you know that some people will interpret it that way, as they did before we changed to the current/recent wording that makes it clear that we should only debate really obvious cases like Latin. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a debate on which is PRIMARYTOPIC every time; the mandate of the old/renewed consensus (the one being fought off so avidly here by the author of the disputed passage) was that the people are necessarily the primary topic in almost all cases (one that comes to mind that's not is Rusyn language, where Rusyn people doesn't get anywhere near the views, but "Ruthenian" is the more common English variant, though it means also other things). The problem here is that Kwami went through hundreds and hundreds of articles adding "people" to them willy-nilly without ever reading them, or even changing the text to match the new title ("nobody does that" he said when confronted about his lack of follow-up on all those moves, which he styled as "thousands" in the bulk RM at ] when Sto:lo works fine all by itself and is the normal usage. The conceit that "language and people are equally primary topics" a work of fiction and utterly original research, and not borne out by stats, views or incoming links. The resistance to what is needed on this guideline, which was abused to mandate controversial moves without wide discussion or any effort to fix links and more, is ongoing, and to me if no one else, obviously disruptive and contentious, especially given the number of discussions that that same editor has sought to defray or shut down in the course of reverting all the changes in question to their original titles, which stood for a long time before NCL was re-authored to mandate the needless change. @Cuchullain:, at what point does this endless reversion to the contested, faulty and non-consensual form of this guideline become considered officially disruptive and obstructionist? How many times have we seen this reversion, and confounding and more than a bit abstruse arguments and illogics fielded here to continue to insist that this guideline need not obey TITLE or other guidelines? I mean, when is enough enough?Skookum1 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're quite the one to talk about Cuchullain's intent, when you claimed his intent when inserting a now-gone bit about there being different guidelines/practices re Canadian indigenous peoples vs everyone else, then rejigged that to talk about North America vs everyone else; your misrepresentations of what his comments were, and what others said variously, are highly notable in their lack of truth. "Obvious cases" for people-names as PRIMARYTOPIC abound, as they are nouns and not adjective as in "FOO people" and "FOO language" constructions. Here, once again, you are claiming someone else said something they did not, claiming their intent was not what it clearly was, and continuing your obstructionism.....`Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

lfdder (talk · contribs), there is nothing in the new consensus that says each one has to be discussed or that any given person has to participate in a discussion. The problem is that more than one editor is using the disputed wording to take it to mean that all languages and all people must be at "foo people" and "foo language" even when they don't share a common name. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the wording is out of step (slightly) with much better established policies and guidelines like WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as well as the parallel guideline at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and this guideline's own introduction. When a minor guideline is out of step with community-wide consensus, the minor guideline is what's out of line and needs to be updated. These (slight) changes just make it somewhat clearer that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be followed in cases where there's a primary topic. The Parnkala example shows what can happen when editors become more concerned with adding "language" and "people" after names than in getting readers where they need to go. --Cúchullain /c 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

to mean that all languages and all people must be at "foo people" and "foo language". I don't think anyone who may have implied that meant it literally, or universally; I've pointed this out to you, and yet you keep repeating it as if it were an actual problem. It's not even the main point: The main point is the problem of name-warring that we used to have. Your solution – that if we don't want to spend a lot of time on renewed name warring, we should just close our eyes and ignore it, is not something you would follow yourself. I could just as easily say to you that if you don't like what I'm doing, you don't need to dispute it, just ignore it. What kind of answer is that?

In the lead we say, "if the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for ". That says what you want, doesn't it? The problem is in the Languages and their speakers section, where you set up a primary-topic content between the language and its speakers. It's not necessary, as we've already covered that, and it's harmful, in that now there will be editors who insist on counting hits and WP, Google, or Google Books to detect margins that are too slight to bother with. That is a valid concern, and rather than dismissing it and instructing us not to care what happens to the articles of this project, you should work out a consensus, as they do on every other project when they debate their guidelines.

Besides myself, William Thweatt and lfdder have made this objection, and on related pages others have as well (though their comments are buried in Skookum's diatribes, so I can't find them off hand). These are good editors, and their concerns should be addressed with more than dismissal. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What you claim here belies the fact that you (and in some cases, User:JorisV did use it to mean "universally" and "literally", and you applied it that way extensively, and cited this guideline in doing so (though often you didn't cite it at all). Claiming one thing while doing another seems par for the course, and I don't mean Cuchullain, CBW, JHunterJ or myself. "Name-warring" has been resolved by dozens of RMS which you opposed and tried to shut down. As always you're being disingenous; there need be no "name-warring" we only still have because of your opposition to observing TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC.Skookum1 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again you try to blame me for the problems faced by this discussion, and stylizing my longer style of response as a "diatribe" is trendy, but it's also WP:AGF and WP:NPA. WP:BAITing me I've seen before and it's really quite boring; and you lost the RMs that your penchant for that was pointed out in. "Concerns" meaning "preferences" as expressed by WilliamThweatt and Cnilep are not relevant when TITLE and other POLICY are properly observed; they are opinions only, and not helpful to proper discussion. Citations, sources, view stats, etc are what counts, not the opinions of editors who have not and do not address the policies concerning TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC.Skookum1 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, how is recognizing a primary topic (if there is one) between the language and its speakers harmful? Margins that are too slight to bother with don't yield primary topics (the primary topic must be "much more" than any other, not "too-slight-to-bother-with more"). When there is no Misplaced Pages ambiguity, use the name without "language" for the language article's title (unless "Language" is part of the language's name). When there is Misplaced Pages ambiguity, and the language is the primary topic (much more than any other topic, and more than all other's combined), use the name without "language" for the language article's title. When there is Misplaced Pages ambiguity, and the language is not the primary topic (perhaps even by a too-slight-to-bother-with margin), use the name with "language" for the language article's title. Those are the consensus guidelines for handling primary topics, and there's no reason to handle language topics differently. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing. In situations like this, it's almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion, but thank you for continuing to try. Basically the convention, as is, looks good and complies with larger Misplaced Pages policies. I haven't seen a concrete proposal for a wording change to the convention in quite a while. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yes, there's nothing wrong with identifying the accepted Wiki-wide standards, and everything with trying to apply different standards to one walled garden of articles. Simply identifying the consensus guidelines isn't going to change anything drastically as far as these articles are concerned, it will just help head up future conflicts caused by the way this guideline has been used in the past.--Cúchullain /c 17:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're correct in your prediction that nothing is going to change drastically, then I have no problem with it. But I don't have much confidence in that, and if what people have said here is any indication, we'll soon be fighting over five thousand articles: moving them, moving them back, clogging up ANI with move requests, yadda yadda yadda. If people are clear that neither the ethno- or linguistic part of ethnolinguistic is inherently more notable than the other, and that there's no problem with a dab page that contains just two links, and that we shouldn't preempt the people by occupying that space with the language they speak, just because linguists have been more prolific on WP than anthropologists, then great. But I'd prefer to see that spelled out so we can prevent a potentially colossal waste of time. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

JHunterJ, the problem isn't in the policies themselves, but in the way they've been interpreted – like TWODABS meaning we can't have a dab page w only two links. If people don't start trying to move language articles because of this change in wording, then there's no harm. What we had before the current wording, however, were ridiculous debates over whether restricting GBook searches to certain dates or subtopics favored one dab over the other as the primary topic. A second problem, though, is the idea of being ambiguous only on WP. Ethnolinguistic names are inherently ambiguous: they refer both to a people and to a language, and unlike the case of biographies on potentially hundreds of people who by chance happen to have the same name but are not similarly notable, ethnolinguistic articles are equally notable and interdependent. In some cases we cover both the people and the language in one article, in which case it's at FOO. But most of the time we cover just the language, and because our linguistic coverage is much more complete than our ethnic coverage, there is often no corresponding article on the people. Does that mean that the people get second billing? Or to we move a language article just to have to move it back when someone want to create the ethnic article? And then we'll need to go through and rd all the incoming links, because whoever moved the article will have forgotten to mark the rd as a potential article so the links don't get replaced, – remember, we're talking about thousands of articles, – and we'll need to police tens of thousands of links to revert anyone who tries linking to the new location directly. What a pain in the ass. I suppose we could just create thousands of unreferenced stubs at "FOO people" that say nothing more than "The FOO people speak the FOO language", and then fight over whether they should be deleted as unnotable – even more of a pain in the ass. Our policies are supposed to incorporate a bit of common sense. The system we have here has worked well for years, and you've had several editors now saying they don't want it changed. What benefit is there to changing it, except for blind adherence to a fundamentalist interpretation of a policy that wasn't meant to be blindly adhered to? — kwami (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:TWODABS doesn't mean we can't have a dab page with only two links; editors who were misreading or misapplying it that way have been corrected at the disambiguation talk pages. Language articles that exist at "Foo language" when there is no article at "Foo" do indicate a problem; the fix is one of (a) move "Foo language" to "Foo", (b) create a disambiguation page at "Foo", or (c) redirect "Foo" to another article that should not have the title "Foo" but is still the primary topic for "Foo". Ethnolinguistic names are not inherently ambiguous on Misplaced Pages until Misplaced Pages has coverage of both the people and the language. This interpretation of "second billing" is problematic; primary topicness is not an award or reward, but a navigational device. If there is no corresponding article on the people, then the people currently have "no billing" on Misplaced Pages, not second billing. If "Foo" exists as the language article and an editor wants to create an article on the Foo people, they can (a) create "Foo people" and put a hatnote on "Foo"; (b) create "Foo people", move "Foo" to "Foo language", edit the "Foo" redirect to be a disambiguation page, and update all of the articles that link to "Foo" to link to the language (or the people, if that was what was intended); or (c) move "Foo" to "Foo language", edit the "Foo" redirect to be the article on the people with a hatnote to the people, and update all the links to "Foo" to link to the language (or the people, if that was what was intended). If, once Misplaced Pages ambiguity has been introduced, another editor disagrees with the first editor's bold selection (or not) of primary topic, they can use the Talk pages or WP:RM to determine if there's a different consensus for the primary topic -- this is not a waste of time. This is the common-sense policy, and it works as well for peoples and languages as it does for the rest of Misplaced Pages. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (if there was a local consensus) hasn't worked well, and has been a pain in the ass when editors unaware of the local consensus encounter some of the mis-arranged articles and improve the arrangement, and has apparently led some editors to put language articles at sub-optimal spellings in an attempt to avoid the WP:RM process. Recognizing local consensuses as local consensuses isn't blind adherence to a fundamentalist application of anything; that line is just spin. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The process you outline is precisely the problem. And the upset has not been here but with the ethnic articles, which are covered by a different guideline. A problem there should be fixed there, not here. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines are supposed to reflect common practice, and appending 'language' to ambiguous language names is common practice. Consider a parallel: Nearly all language families have 'languages' appended to them, but very few are ambiguous. By your argument we sould move Indo-European languages to Indo-European, Altaic languages to Altaic, and similarly a thousand others. But what's the point? As it is now, all language families end in "languages", and this consensus is a pattern that people find useful and have come to expect. Before moving 8,000 articles, we're going to need a broader "consensus" than a couple editors on this talk page saying their way is best. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because that's exactly what happened here at NCL, and on thousands of articles (really more like several hundred) that you moved based on the changes you had done here, with fewer participants in the discussion than are currently here. And TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC were created with even wider discussion with even more editors. Many, perhaps even most, "people articles" have always been at their undisambiguated titles.Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami said "By your argument we move Indo-European languages to Indo-European...". Not by my argument. Indo-Europoean languages are not referred to as just "Indo-European"; language families always use "languages", and the first part is treated as an adjective. Yes, guidelines are supposed to reflect common practice, but you've been using them to append language to unambiguous (on Misplaced Pages) language names, which isn't common practice, just your practice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is. language families always use "languages", and the first part is treated as an adjective. Well, I can just as easily say languages always use "language", and the first part is treated as an adjective. What possible logic could you use to justify different treatment for "Indo-European languages" and "Parnkalla language"? Neither has an article on the people, and neither needs to have "language(s)" appended for navigational purposes. (Or pick a family w/o a dab page, if that's an objection.) — kwami (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What possible logic? How about the existence of Latin at Latin instead of Latin language? So if you say "languages always use 'language'", you'd simply be provable wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And I suppose that's really the crux of the matter. The wording has been used to justify adding "language" and "people" to article titles irrespective of potential primary topics for years, even though it conflicts with usual practice and policy. However, consensus we're seeing both here and at RM is that usual practice should be followed if there are primary topics. A number of different tactics have been tried to rationalize keeping the previous prescriptive wording, but it seems that the more typical practices described at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:AT will prevail.--Cúchullain /c 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that go for language families too? You said above that simply identifying the consensus guidelines isn't going to change anything drastically as far as these articles are concerned, it will just help head up future conflicts. But JHunterJ wants to move thousands of articles based on the wording you say won't change anything. Are you willing to modify the wording so that doesn't happen? — kwami (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone, least of all JHunterJ, has registered any problem with the current wording in the language families section. In most cases "languages" is part of the common name of families, which isn't the case with most individual languages. I would not be willing to add any wording of any kind that conflicts with usual Misplaced Pages-wide policy or practice.--Cúchullain /c 18:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. "Indo-European" is the name of the family, just as "French" is the name of the language. "Languages" is no more part of the former than "language" is part of the latter. A book entitled The Indo-European Languages is equivalent to a book entitled The French Language. If all language articles need to be moved when there is no in-universe ambiguity, then all family articles need to be moved too. You and JHunterJ may not want that, but what's to keep someone else from demanding it, if you're not willing to accept any wording that would head it off? — kwami (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would probably prevent most language family articles from being moved. If thousands of articles aren't currently at their common name when it's available, then that's a much bigger problem than the wording of this guideline.--Cúchullain /c 19:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would WP:COMMONNAME apply to families and not to languages? It's common to speak of "sound changes in Indo-European", just as it's common to speak of "mandating the French language". In both cases the second word is a disambiguator, not part of the name. They're logically equivalent, and more frequently omitted than, say, the word "the" in the Americas, which we omit. There are even books like Levin (2002) Semitic and Indo-European, and even if he had used the word 'languages' in the title, it would be only once (Semitic and Indo-European Languages), demonstrating that it is separate from the name of the families. (Besides, COMMONNAME is arguably irrelevant, because we're not choosing between different names: move "French language" to "French", and the name is still "French".) — kwami (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME affects all language families, languages, and all other articles.--Cúchullain /c 20:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If it applies to languages, it applies to families. If it would prevent families from being moved, it would prevent languages from being moved. Assuming it has anything to do with this question at all, since there's no difference in name. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And it prevents neither from being moved. It is perfectly possible for the "... languages" to be the common name for many language families and "..." (without language) to be the common name for many languages, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Except that it's the name of neither! The name of the family is "Indo-European". The name of the language is "French". Or are you telling me that COMMONNAME is not just about names, but about the context of names? None of the examples at COMMONNAME are concerned with such things, and the texts only speaks of names and terms, not disambiguators or context. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME concerns itself with the title of the article, not the "true name" of the topic. But I've no objection to moving Indo-European languages to Indo-European, if that's its common name. I had no idea it could have been. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not understanding me. "Indo-European languages" is not the name, so it cannot be the COMMONNAME. A name is not the title, but COMMONNAME concerns itself with which name to use in the title: Should it be "Indo-European" or "Indo-Germanic", for example – appending "languages" to either has nothing to do with it.

It does suggest following other encyclopedias. The EB, for example, has both "Indo-European languages" and "French language" – despite the fact that it has no article on the French people, or indeed any article that it needs to be disambiguated from. That is, the EB judges "French" to be inadequate as a title, despite the fact that it would work perfectly well.

Our naming policy states, when titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. As we had here before you started changing it. Also, consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. That's been evoked by opponents of your change several times now. It also notes that local guidelines may elaborate on such things, so the argument that we can't have a "walled garden" on consistent naming is directly contradicted by WP policy. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The red herring here is that anyone is disputing that "language" is a needed dab on most language articles (in some cases, plainly not), the passage you are defending concerns the unnecessary "people" dab the disputed passage here was used to add, even though this is not a "people" guideline. As for consistency, you ignored prior consensus yourself when you launched that change (as documented in the diffs provided, along with your caustic and disputatious edit comments), as you moved things in categories where standalone titles were the norm; you also ignored modern and/or self-identifying endonyms which were consistent within their categories by changing them to now-obsolete forms e.g. Nlaka'pamux->Thompson, St'at'imc-Lillooet. Then fought their reversion in the RMs needed to revert your undiscussed changes.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

re the history of the passage in question

This "wants to move thousands of articles" line also repeated here as elsehwere, aside from being another exaggeration, is just not the case; most already do not have the people dab....most need not be moved, it's the ones that were moved without discussion to redirects of themselves that are at issue; if it's "thousands" I haven't determined yet; if I hadn't taken the time to spell out the diffs on NCP and NCL that "caused" all this tonight, I might have had time/energy to finish the list I've been mentioning; in the morning, it's 1:41 am. here. So far I've only done North/Central America and the Caribbean, but it's a start.Skookum1 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you're not talking about what everyone else is. No language article is appended with the 'people' dab. — kwami (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I guess three years is "for years" but that wording has only existed since Feb 12, 2011 after a discussion/proposal that began four days earlier on Feb 8, 2011 that was a procession from debates starting Jan 31, 2011.

• Note this insertion into NCP on Jan 31, 2011 then this contesting of it by Gadfium then this edit with comment "--naive edit; not a talk page" by Kwami
• then Gadfium's reply "yes thank you, that was my point
• then "--repeatedly posting talk-page comments in guideline. warned of disruption." by Kwami
• then this launch of a formal discussion by Auseos
  • the outcome of which was on April 13, 2012 the transfer of that section to the newly-created WP:NCET, excerpted from NCP on that date by Onceinawhile.

• • Then the series of edits here spanning Feb 12-13 2011 and
  • this reversion by Auseos, commenting "no reason why this should differ from the agreed wording at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (languages) (as it was on that date)
  • then this moving of that to the talkpage on Nov 23, 2011, with the first appearance of the table now on NCET (er, it might have been on WP:Ethnic Groups first I think), and this re-addition of "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term is preferred for both articles, with the basic term serving as a disambiguation page." on the same day with comment "rs some" ("reverse some"?), then this removal of it "pending further discussion,
  • then this "revising based on discussion on the talk page" then various minor title changes and "tribe" terminology additions until the move by Onceinawhile to NCET.

• The NCP talkpage discussions are archived starting here on November 21, 2011 until Jan 21, 2012, with four participants, then this related discussion which ended on the day when Onceinawhile created NCET by transferring the material. NB in the course of that move the term "preferred" was added to the table, and also to the accompany paragraph, it was not in previous versions of the table.
• The addition of "people" to ethnonym titles by the author of the passage in question had indeed started before NCL was changed, sometime in 2010, I'd have to look back to see which and when exactly; some titles had always been that way, but most had not been (i.e. they were at standalone titles, the bulk of them still are; moreso now given the last 80-100 RMs and others in the last year to revert them back but there are many still out there that were moved unnecessarily and most are where the standalone title is a redirect to the FOO people title-format.Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• this edit on March 2014 on NCET is worth noting for what it admits and what it presumes (i.e. that because little effort has been put into expanding people stubs that a longer language article would be odd not to have as the primary title; and that "walled "garden" comment is a mirror of a comment on the Tlingit RM the day before " It shouldn't be a walled garden around BC, with special naming conventions just for them, but should apply everywhere" which is odd because the Tlingit are primarily in Alaska, though there are a few (a very few) in BC.....vs this on April 12 2014 "looks like recent consensus has made Canada an exception", which isn't about any consensus I know of; other similar changes and claims were made elsewhere, as I know you are aware. I won't diff-link the various exchanges on that talkpage, which are just as circular and...convoluting, if that's the term. My attempt to rectify NCET according to the actual (re-)emergent consensus was verted as "no consensus for these edits"], though not by Kwami. Attempts to address consensus there were treated similarly to how they were here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28ethnicities_and_tribes%29&diff=602833662&oldid=602824603
• Note this comment here in that light, and its claim that Cuchullain agrees with him (about what the guideline should say)], which is not the case, as clearly seen here also. Somewhat of a side issue but note this attempt to qualify without discussion the section on NCL about names offensive to the groups described] by someone else who not only used NCL to move articles to "FOO people" dabs but also to resist/oppose RMs, but was was claimed to be policy in a post copy-pasted across numerous RMs of that kind (how many I'd have to count up, but seems like it was a good two dozen). There were also some commentors/"voters" who were convinced that having "people" on such titles was not only mandatory, but also the norm and "invariably the case" or some phrasing to that effect....which just ain't so, not ever.Skookum1 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put WP:TLDR to this attempt to pull out all the stops to try to confound what Cuchullain and Uyvsdi have said, and won't bother responding to the many humorous uses of terms like "common sense". If there are articles that have both people and language in them, they're supposed to be separated, as was done long ago; and the b.s. that there will be "thousands of unrefeferenced stubs" at "FOO people" (at "FOO", really) is pure hogwash. The idea that "tens of thousands" of people articles are unnotable is only an expression of your ignorance about their notability. Your lack of knowledge of the titles you changed without so much as looking at the article or revising its phrasing to match I'm already too familiar with. And here you speak again of this guideline as if it were a "policy", which it is not. It's the "fundamentalist interpretation" of THIS guideline (NCL) with not just blind adherence but repetitive obstinacy in RMs to move them back to where they originally were that's been the problem. And no, it hasn't worked well over the years since 2010-2011 when you did the bulk of these using this guideline as a hammer and have since fought tooth and nail to resist all RMs to restore your handiwork, just as you are resisting kowtowing to the very obvious consensus evident here; and I haven't counted "several editors now saying they don't want it changed", only a few....and their reasons for not wanting it changed are not in line with POLICY, and are only opinion, like your own position. And geez, where is that citation for "language and people are equally primary topics" that you asserted here and in RMs? Somewhere in the OR universe?Skookum1 (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is clearly too much discussion to go through all of it. I don't see any form of broad consensus here, at any rate: just a handful of editors on the one hand, one editor on the other. The comment on our talk page that people from WPLANG probably already knew about this discussion before kwami's notification is clearly inappropriate. Then, it is fairly straightforward that given no context, you cannot know from an ethnonym whether it is applied to a language or not. The language name is usually secondary to the ethnonym, though languages are one of the most promising indicators of ethnicity in areal history. Articles on ethnonyms and languages will contain rather different information, and even if there is only one article on WP, its title will be ambiguous. Using a “classifier” such as “language” solves this problem and makes WP easier to use. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The question might become tricky for peoples without an associated language (in reality, not on WIkipedia). If a people can be associated with a language (which is recognized by specialists as such or, as a linguistically insignificant dialect of another variety, has notable social reality), the use of classifiers for both the people and the language might be worthwhile. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I struck out that line in my response to the CANVASS, which should have been neutral and not posted with such exaggeration and what comes off like panic about "thousands of articles", and remains "out of order" until reposted in neutral terms; lord knows WPLanguages should have been notified of the discussions diff/linked above within this guideline to make the Feb 2011 change that affected "thousands" of articles (several hundred anyway, and as noted most do not already, many never have, and that was the prevailing norm until Feb 2011.

Please note the posts here by JHunterJ, Uyvsdi, CambridgeBayWeather, Cuchullain and myself about TITLE and other guidelines which the passage that is under dispute/filibuster mandate should be changed per those guidelines and a large series of RMs that reverted the unnecessary addition of "people" to titles, using a language guideline irrespective of all other guidelines and policies (and claiming that it was policy).

My own position is that if a language is named for the people, and the name of the people is a noun, the noun is necessarily the primary topic, i.e. the people. Languages that have their own names do not need disambiguation, also; WP:NCDAB and WP:DAB and TITLE/CONCISENESS/PRECISION all mandate that, as is the same with people articles as with any other. Disambiguation only when necessary. The common usage of people-names in normal English, and also in the articles themselves, is in standalone form, without the artificial construction +people, which often enough has its own issues re some titles who are peoples, not one people, and also with the "FOO people"="people who are FOO" meaning, which is about individuals, and remains ambiguous when applied to the name of a people when it need not be. TWODAB pages have resulted from the wide application of NCL since its amendment; many have been made into redirects to the primary topics, i.e. the peoples; many were consensus moves on RMs fought against by quoting only this guideline, as if it had priority over TITLE and other guidelines, which it does not.Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The death of conversation

At the very great risk of sounding like a WP:DIVA, I'm going to vent just a bit. I am aware of multiple discussions going on over the past several weeks on the naming conventions for languages and peoples. I have for the most part, however, hesitated to participate in those discussions for a couple of closely related reasons. I don't feel much of use will come of them, and I am frankly afraid of being viewed as an "enemy" by some quite vocal participants. I suspect that other contributors may have feelings similar to my own, but I speak only for myself.

These discussions have been plagued – in my personal opinion – by a very small number of editors who make rational discussion at best uncomfortable and at worst impossible. Although I have little doubt that editors are doing what they feel is right to defend their own deeply held beliefs, actions such as throwing up walls of text, forum shopping across venues, and making borderline or outright ad hominem arguments make it unlikely – again, in my opinion – that any rational decision can be reached. By saying this I don't hope to shut down the discussions, but do want to put on record my very real fear that no lasting consensus can emerge. I personally am taking a step back from the whole palaver. Cnilep (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it would be good to have your opinion, even if you don't want to put in the time to defend it. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

there's clearly no consensus for this either

'Nuff said. Your resistance to a mounting consensus that began with last year's St'at'imc, Ktunaxa, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc and Nlaka'pamux RMs, and has continued this year with Dakelh, Wuikinuxv, Shishalh, and the dozens of RMs moved/closer by Cuchullain, BDD, Xoloz and others is tiresome and obstinate and obstructive. That you moved all of those without consensus, and en masse, and sought to block consensus/RMs to revert them in each and every case, makes your reversion here on the basis of "no consensus" all the more ironic...though that's not quite right word is it? You are displaying WP:OWN over this passage; not surprising given you were its author and lobbyist. There is no consensus whatsoever for the notion that ethno articles must have a dab, or that languages are equally a primarytopic; there is also little in the way of citations to support that claim, which is your own, and highly OR.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"consensus" does not mean unanimity

Aside from the point that consensus cannot override POLICY like TITLE, it's also true that "consensus" does NOT mean "unanamity". In all RMs and CfDs, vote-counts are typically used by the closer, often ignoring qualitative comments/votes and counting things only numerically/quantitatively, even when they're illogical or a-factual. That's not the case here, where POLICY is invoked, and there is a stonewall underway to maintain that there is no consensus, when in fact there is a majority consensus based in POLICY and heaps of precedents, vs a "minority consensus" (of one, really, other than WilliamThweat and Cnilep, who have remained silently while the one oppose-consensus-at-all-costs editor) continues to try and confound discussion and claim consensus does not exist because he says so. Nope, that's not the way things work; but of course that's not the way they're supposed to, but wearing opposition down by an ongoing campaign of illogic and deprecation and misrepresentation of what others have said, is not just tiresome, it's becoming predictable.Skookum1 (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: CANVASS at WikiProject Languages about this discussion

Please note here May 9, 2014. Editorializing on this discussion in the course of notifying the relevant WikiProject is against guidelines; I know if I were to do that I'd be slapped down for it (and was re the Boundary Ranges CfD, in fact).Skookum1 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)