Editing Encyclopedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources)

{{Redirect|WP:USEENGLISH|the more concise policy on this ([[WP:UE]])|Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and Anglicization|the related style guideline|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spelling and romanization|the talk page guideline|WP:ENGLISHPLEASE|the language preference policy for cited sources|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources}}
{{Redirect|WP:EN||Wikipedia:EN (disambiguation)}}
{{Redirect|WP:ENGLISH|WikiProject English Language|WP:ENGLANG}}{{subcat guideline|naming convention|Use English|WP:EN|WP:ENG|WP:NCUE|WP:ENGLISH}}
{{Nutshell|This is the English Wikipedia. Article titles should match English-language reliable sources.}}

The [[Wikipedia:Article titles|title of an article]] should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in [[WP:SOURCES|reliable sources]] (for example [[Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely accepted name|other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources]]). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with [[Madrid]]. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form ([[Aragon]], [[Venice]], [[Normandy]]; [[Franz Josef Strauss]], [[Victor Emmanuel III of Italy|Victor Emmanuel III]], [[Christopher Columbus]]). Rarely, as with [[Germany]] or [[Mount Everest]], it will be completely different. 

If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it. Whenever something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of [[WP:ENGVAR|national varieties of English]], use that instead.

Names not originally in a [[Latin alphabet]], as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be [[transliteration|transliterated]] into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g., [[Hanyu Pinyin]] and [[IAST]]) are preferred. Nonetheless, if there is a common English form of the name, this is preferred over a systematically transliterated name; thus, use ''[[Tchaikovsky]]'' or ''[[Chiang Kai-shek]]'', even though those are unsystematic. For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see [[Wikipedia:Romanization]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional)]]. 

The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from native and other historically relevant names are encouraged. Where there is an English word or an [[exonym]] for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.

==Include alternatives==
{{shortcut|WP:UEIA}}
The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin script, this representation should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the [[Beijing]] article should mention that the city is also known as [[Peking]], and that both names derive from the Chinese name {{lang|zh|[[北京]]}}. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example {{lang|sv|[[Sverige]]}} is a redirect to [[Sweden]]. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms, it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see [[Freyr]] for an example of this.

==Modified letters==
{{see also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spelling and romanization|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ligatures}}
{{anchor|Modified letters}}
{{shortcut|WP:DIACRITICS}}

The use of modified letters (e.g. those with [[diacritic|accents or other diacritics]]) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in [[WP:SOURCES|reliable sources]] that are written in the English language (including [[Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely accepted name|other encyclopedias and reference works]]). The [[WP:COMMONNAME|policy on using common names]] and on [[WP:UE|foreign names]] does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as [[WP:VERIFY|verified]] by reliable sources. 

In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. 

Place [[Wikipedia:Redirect#Alternative names and languages|redirects]] at alternative titles, such as those with or without diacritics. Add {{tl|R to diacritic}} or {{tl|R from diacritic}} below the redirect to properly categorize it, such as for print editions.

[[WP:Search engines|Search engines]] are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of [[optical character recognition]] errors.

[[Old English|''Old'' English]] has one recurrent issue treated separately from [[MOS:CONFORM|''archaic'' glyphs and ligatures in [Modern] English]]. Graphemes like ''œ'' and ''æ'' are separate letters in the [[Old English Latin alphabet]], thus articles are, by and large, titled like [[Ælfric of Eynsham]] for Old English and [[Ægir]] for Old Norse. In Modern English, these are merely optional ligatures<!-- Optional here means basically the same thing "typographic" at Œ#French, distinguished from "linguistic" -->, so MoS splits them into ''oe'' and ''ae''. For Latin- or Greek-derived words, use ''e'' or ''ae''/''oe'', depending on modern usage and the [[WP:ENGVAR|national variety of English]] used in the article. German proper names should be treated with care and attention to {{em|English}} practice. Notice that even in German, combinations such as ''oe'' are used in some names rather than [[Diaeresis (diacritic)|umlaut]]s (as in [[Emmy Noether]] and, in modern German, [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]).

Beware of overdramatising these issues. As an example, [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles]] may be mentioned, which—as a side-effect—{{em|peacefully}} regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles before, during, and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, such as [[Inishmore]] and not {{lang|ga|Inis Mór}}, or [[Tomás Ó Fiaich]] and not ''Tomas O'Fiaich'' (see the aforementioned MoS page for details).

== Established usage in English-language sources ==
{{shortcut|WP:ESTABLISHED}}
If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.

== Divided usage in English-language sources ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:DIVIDEDUSE}}
Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the "[[2006 Winter Olympics|Olympics in Torino]]", following official handouts; however, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world referred to it taking place in [[Turin]]. In this case, we cannot determine which is "most common". Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

[[Wikipedia:Search engine test|Search-engine hits]] are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If there are fewer than 700 hits,<ref name="GoogleHitCounts">{{Cite web|url=http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1943|title=Climategate, Tiger, and Google hit counts: dropping the other shoe|last=Nunberg|first=Geoff|author-link=Geoffrey Nunberg|date=7 December 2009|department=Language and politics|website=[[Language Log]]|location=[[University of Pennsylvania]]|publisher=[[Linguistic Data Consortium]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619060512/http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1943|archive-date=19 June 2018|url-status=live|access-date=19 June 2018|quote=When Google reports hit count estimates over a few hundred, the results should never be taken at face value, or any value at all—they're not only too inaccurate for serious research, but demonstrably flaky.&nbsp;[...] In these cases we can assume that Google has tried to return all the pages in its index that contain the search string. (A figure between 700 and 1000 might be an accurate count, but might also be Google's effort to return around 1000 pages for a term that appears on thousands or millions of web pages.)}}</ref> the {{em|actual}} count (from the final page of hits) {{em|may}} be accurate for the engine's particular corpus of English, but whether this represents all English usage is less certain. If there are more than 700 estimated hits, the number from the last page {{em|will}} be wrong; a search engine loads only a limited number of hits, no matter how many there are.<ref name="GoogleHitCounts" /> Counts over 1,000 are usually estimates, and may be extremely inaccurate.<ref name="GoogleHitCounts" /> If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 603 for one variant and 430 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to [[WP:SOURCES|verifiable reliable sources]] than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Also, consult reliable works of general reference in English.

[[WP:NOT#CRYSTAL|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.]] It is not our business to predict what term will be in use, but rather to observe what is and has been in use and will therefore be familiar to our readers. If ''Torino'' ousts ''Turin'', we should follow, but we should not leap to any conclusion until it does. 

When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version. If it is unclear whether an article's name has been stable, defer to the name used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a [[Wikipedia:stub|stub]].{{efn|This paragraph was adopted to stop [[Wikipedia:Page-move war|page-move warring]]. It is an adaptation of the wording in the [[WP:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]], which is based on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].}}

== No established usage in English-language sources ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:DONTUSEENGLISH|WP:USENATIVE}}
It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts [[WP:BIG|can but need not be]] indicative of this. {{em|If}} this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about ([[German language|German]] for [[:Category:German politicians|German politicians]], [[Turkish language|Turkish]] for [[:Category:Rivers of Turkey|Turkish rivers]], [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]] for [[:Category:Municipalities of Brazil|Brazilian municipalities]] etc.).

If, as will happen, there are several competing foreign terms, a neutral one is often best. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Multiple local names]] and [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names|§ Use modern names]] express some ideas on resolving such problems.

== See also ==
*{{slink|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Proper names}} – guideline for proper names, e.g. place names and personal names
*[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)]] – more on place names, including the use of alternate names, contemporary names and transliterations, with some advice potentially applicable to non-geographic names
*[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)]] – specific rules for Western royalty and nobility 
*[[Wikipedia:Romanization]] – conventions for how to transliterate languages not written in the Latin alphabet
*[[:Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional)]] – guidelines for writing about particular places or cultures
*[[Wikipedia:Use modern language]] – encyclopedic writing is semi-formal but contemporary; avoid old-fashioned wording and style.
*[[Wikipedia:Use plain English]] – essay on using everyday English, and not obscurantist, jargon-festooned, or otherwise obtuse, omphaloskeptic verbiage (like this)

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist}}