Talk:Ushak carpet

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below.

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions, where we read, Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. I think it's been demonstrated that "Ushak" is the more common spelling in English, and this is the English language Wikipedia.

Those opposing the move didn't argue that "Usak" is more common, but that we should prefer it because it's more correct. Because we have a policy saying that we should prefer the most common name, and because that's the standard being applied widely across Wikipedia, it makes sense to apply that standard here as well, and doing so seems to point us to "Ushak". As Evv pointed out below, we aim to reflect English usage, not to correct it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Uşak carpet → Ushak carpet — Revert a bad move. Overwhelmingly the best known in English name for this carpet, and the proper name, "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Was just moved without discussion or consensus from Ushak Carpet, but lowercase c is conventional naming practice. Gene Nygaard 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support as nominator. Gene Nygaard 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. - I'm usually pro-diacritics, but only when they just imply adding "something" to a standard character. In this case, the difference is not "Uşak/Usak" or "Uşhak/Ushak", but actually adding or removing an h. Therefore, following the principle of least astonishment, I prefer Ushak. - Evv 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ushak doesn't mean anything - that's an indication of how "Uşak" should be pronounced - that's the problem. Are you suggesting that we move Côte-d'Or to Kot dorr?? "Uşak" is the correct encyclopedic version of the name. And I still don't understand why it should be moved to "Ushak".. That's just the pronounciation guide - it doesn't have any meaning. I am sorry, but the renaming proposal really doesn't make sense: Why should the article about the carpets of Uşak be at "Ushak"??? There are neccessary redirects, as well as the pronounciation guide in the lead, I really cannot see why the article should be moved to the pronounciation guide. Please see systemic bias about this, it is really not fair that French et al names can be at their correct spellings whereas Turkish names can't. Baristarim 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  All the books I've seen so far (see "The usual simple tests" below) use Ushak carpet, with one single exception. Wikipedia policies ask us to merely reflect English usage, not to "correct" it. - Best regards, Evv 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support as per Evv. Asterion^talk 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose It is the carpets of Uşak. The pronounciation is given in the intro. Obiviously the policy is use English, but we are not talking about a different language, we are only talking about the diacritics of the Latin alphabet. And "most common name" is a tricky one. Do not forget that many people might not be able to write the character because they do not have access to it, which means that we cannot know what they would have preferred to write had they access to that character. Usak carpet and Ushak carpet redirect here, so there is no room for confusion. Anyone typing it in google will see this page anyhow. Also see São Paulo, Düsseldorf and many others. Dusseldorf and Sao Paulo are also the most common names in English by far. However, their articles still use the diacritics. Use English means that the most common name will be used in a dispute like Gdansk/Danzig, it doesn't exclude the use of diacritics of its most common name in English. Baristarim 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what they "prefer" to write. It has to do with what we do write. And what we do write is overwhelmingly "Ushak", then much less often "Usak", with even the latter at least 10 to 1 over Uşak,m and the former maybe 50 or 100 or more to 1. You, of course, were the one who made the improper, undiscussed move, so it is no surprise that you support it. Note also that Ushak carpet did not redirect here until I created the redirect today. What people using Google will not find is the other pages in which you or someone else has changed the normal, most-common "Ushak" spelling to support your pushing of a foreign spelling over the normal English spelling. The redirects involving this article are of no utility whatsoever in other articles. Gene Nygaard 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite.. Wikipedia largely allows the use of diacritics of foreign terms that use the Latin alphabet. As I said, see São Paulo, Düsseldorf among many others. In English the most common spelling by far is Sao Paulo for example, or Dusseldorf. Having the original name and its pronounciations can only enrich the encyclopedia. But, again, do not forget that we are not talking about the "name", we are talking about its diacritics. + Uşak is a special name, grammatically speaking. In any case, I personally have no problem with having São Paulo as that article's title, even though I don't have that key on my keyboard. So why is it such a big problem for you?

I noticed that you redirected the Ushak carpet page here, but I had moved this page from Ushak Carpet with capitals. I am sorry that I forgot to create a new page with the small "c". That page wasn't directing to Ushak Carpet either. I do lots of cleanup work, it is normal that I cannot be perfect; but now that you created that page as a redirect, better for Wikipedia! That's all.. Baristarim 03:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We aren't dealing with a foreign term here. It's the normal English name of this carpet, a descriptive term long ago assimilated into English. Furthermore, there is a huge difference in usage of ã and ö in English and usage of ş in English; largely, it is a 'quite legitimate fact that English is much more likely to borrow from the languages that are more closely related to it, in the same family of languages. Gene Nygaard 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose by Baristarim's reasoning. Small diacretics (sp) are OK. -146.186.210.78 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They are "okay" in some contexts. Don't confuse that with a strange idea that they are preferred, far too many Wikipedia editors do. However, according to Wikipedia's naming conventions, we are to use English when an English term is used. We have Munich, not Mönchen; we have Romania, not România. And according to our rules, we should have Ushak carpet, not Uşak carpet, because that is how it is best known in English. Gene Nygaard 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Baristarim. This name is more correct. GassyGuy 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see why the pronounced version should be the real title. Ushak redirects here, and the carpet is Turkish and has a Turkish name, and Turks don't write it as Ushak. Should stay as it is now. It doesn't matter how much it is known in English or not. why should the English convention prevail? In Hungarian we write it as Usak. So what? I support the usage of real names versus glish naming conventions. They should only be redirects. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

It is overwhelmingly known as Ushak carpet in English. Here are some rough Google results:

Google	hits	non-dup shown
"Uşak carpet" -Wikipedia	1650	219
"Uşak carpet" -Wikipedia	369	91
"Uşak carpet" -Wikipedia -Usak	27	6

The last one illustrates quite clearly what you can see by looking at the hits for just "Uşak carpet"; of the 91 shown there, at least 82 of them use the Usak spelling, and only 8 show the "Uşak" spelling. This is clearly known in English, outside Wikipedia, as either "Ushak carpet" or "Usak carpet" (and far more often by the former), and almost never as "Uşak carpet". Gene Nygaard 00:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the longstanding name of this article was Ushak Carpet for a year and a half before it was moved, without discussion or justification, by User:Baristarim a couple of days ago. I think that according to the standard capitalization of Wikipedia articles, however, that it should be moved back with the capitalization fixed to Ushak carpet. Gene Nygaard 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See my comments about the difference between "the most common name" and diacritics. The pronounciation is given, and other articles redirect here, so there is no room for confusion. It is the carpets of the city of Uşak. It is true that I moved, but I wasn't aware that it was going to cause any disagreements. I am sorry if that was the case. But considering that the city name is as such and the use of diacritics are allowed in Wikipedia, I thought that it would be more informative and academic to make such a move. That's all. Baristarim 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The usual simple tests

Consider this as examples of usage only, since it's sometimes hard to search for characters such as "ş".

Google Print test

• Searching for "Ushak carpet": 9 books in English.
• Searching for "Usak carpet": 1 book in English.
• Searching for "Uşak carpet": 0 books.

Google Scholar test

• Searching for "Ushak carpet": 15 results in English.
• Searching for "Usak carpet": 1 result in English.
• Searching for "Uşak carpet": 0 results.

Amazon.com test

• Searching for "Ushak carpet": 13 books in English.
• Searching for "Usak carpet": 1 book in English.

Best regards, Evv 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.