User:Cfaerber/Naming conventions (bias)

Naming conventions, namely WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONUSE sometimes fail to produce conclusive results with respect to geographical and personal names.

Furthermore, reliable sources that state that one name is used more commonly than another one are rare. Most reliable sources, such as encyclopædias, scientific works, or news magazines merely use the name but do not make a statement on the frequency of the name.

Finally, Wikipedia itself influences common usage: Many people use Wikipedia as a one of their sources, including those who write for the media and have a direct influence on common usage. Even if they do double-check the facts, the fact that Wikipedia uses one version of the name will affect their judgment. This can easily make Wikipedia's name choice a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Therefore, it is sometimes necessary not to look at common usage alone but to also make a judgement based on other preferences.

However, these preferences are not supposed to override other naming conventions, they should only be applied where these other guidelines do not yield fully conclusive results.

Prefer newer names

Guideline: If a place has been recently renamed, prefer the newer name over the old name.

Rationale: When the name of a place changes, most guidelines and tests imposed by Wikipedia's naming conventions simply don't work: They are based on common usage, which can not yet exist. Even most reliable sources will predate the name change. Furthermore, reliable sources that state that one name is more commonly used are rare.

Without this guideline, articles might be moved back and forth: When the name is officially changed, the article is moved to the new name—as suggested by reliable sources. However, common usage usually does follow with a delay, so the article will be moved back—as suggested by new reliable sources using the old name. Finally, common usage does follow and the article is moved to the new name. As Wikipedia also influences common usage, there might even be a feedback loop causing multiple oscillations.

Of course, this does not apply to historical usage. Examples: Mumbai (not Bombay), Timor-Leste

Prefer official names

Guideline: If there is an official name, prefer it.

Rationale:

Prefer endonyms

Guideline: If English uses multiple variants of a name, prefer the one closest to the endonym.

Rationale: There is a recent trend to prefer endonyms (local names) over exonyms (names used by others), which is also recommended by supra-national organisations such as the United Nations or the European Union. The exonoyn may often be deemed politically incorrect, having originally been imposed by occupants or oppressors. Furthermore, if the exonym is acceptable in English texts, it actually is an English name (with a different etymologic history), so it is impossible to make a choice based on language, and it may even be a question of different national varieties of English if the local community uses English (as an official language or for other reasons). Using the endonym is often less debatable and causes less harm.

Sub-guideline: If there are multiple romanisations, prefer the one closest to the systematic transliteration.

Rationale: That's

Examples: Beijing, not Peking, Gīzah, not Giza

Sub-guideline: If a name can be written with and without diacritics or uncommon letters, prefer the variant closest to the endoynm.

Rationale: Removing the diacritics or replacing uncommon letters with ersatz renderings is a lossy process; by preserving them Wikipedia simply carries more information. Furthermore, it is impossible to decide whether the simpler variant is an English exonym or has just been chosen for convenience. Diacritics (e.g. umlaut, tilde, diaeresis) and uncommon Latin-script letters (e.g. ash, ethel, sharp s, thorn) are rare in English usage but they do appear and usually, both forms are acceptable.

Examples: Düsseldorf, not *Dusseldorf; Tõkyõ, not *Tokyo; İzmir, not *Izmir

Prefer consistent names

Guidelines: In a series of related articles, prefer a common variant.

Rationale: Geographical entities often lend their names to other geographical entities or to institutions or organisations. When the normal naming conventions are applied to each article on an individual basis, they will sometimes end up with different variants of the name. For example, the city may be known by an established English exonym whereas the district surrounding it may not be known widely enough to establish common English usage. Inconsistencies like these are confusing and should be avoided.

This does not apply if the relationship is just etymologic, that is, if another

Example: Hannover+Hannover Airport or Hanover+Hanover Airport; Munich+Munich (district)

Counter-examples: Hannover and the House of Hanover, Munich and