Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining
| Right now, there is no consistent naming convention for the general mining/mineral production in a given country/region.
The three major usages at present are Mining in X (e.g. Mining in the United Kingdom), Mining industry of X (e.g. Mining industry of South Africa), and Mineral industry of X (e.g. Mineral industry of Peru), where X is the given location (usually nations, subnational countries, or states/provinces). This may or may not be an issue. Reasons for it being problematic: First, when these articles contain different titles for the same body of content, a person searching across them may easily assume that another article exists. Second, it adds to confusion and presents a less-than-organized appearance to a wide and essential topic. The case for a non-issue is that redirects will usually solve most navigational problems, allowing variation and a sort of nuance by location, mining itself being heavily dependent on geography. "Mining in X" has the superior claim. "Mining in X" is the universal category usage and analogous to the likewise universal "Agriculture in X". Topics under "Mining" do include primary mineral processing (e.g. smelting, refining), though if this broader meaning is insufficiently clear, "mining industry of X" may add some clarity there. The possible downside of using "Mining industry of X" is that it seemingly narrows the topic to the industrial and economic aspects (or at least play them up), while ignoring historical, cultural, and heritage aspects. In my opinion, "Mineral industry of X" is unnecessarily vague and a less common usage (only a dozen or so use it), and everything that those articles cover is already covered in one of the other two proposals. Because of the number of articles that need moving in any situation (and inability to move over redirects), I would like some sort of consensus before seeking to move them. Note that this proposal is not intended for sub-topics, since most all use X mining in Y (e.g. Uranium mining in Canada).Morgan Riley (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
Should the article be moved to Jermaine Jacksun his new legal name or remain at Jermaine Jackson?
|
| the term "traditional marriage" as used in discussions of legal definitions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization. note that previous extensive discussion of ths issue, along with suggestions for contextualization and alternate terms, can be found on the Traditional marriage talk page. oedipus (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)
| Why do popes in English Wikipedia have the word Pope in the title? Saint Joan of Arc redirects to Joan of Arc. Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Timothy Cardinal Dolan both redirect to Timothy M. Dolan. President Bill Clinton redirects to Bill Clinton. Besides, many other Wikipedias don't use the word Pope. E.g. en:Pope Benedict XVI,,,,. Full list of interwikis in wikidata:Q2494#wb-item-q2494-sitelinks-counter. See also /Archive 1#Inclusion of titles in article names - suggest changing Pope Innocent IX to Innocent IX, etc. Fridek (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
- This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.
|
|||||||||||
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.
