用户:Cwek/工作室/关于条目常规的一些备存

Wikipedia_talk:命名常规/存档13#提议大幅修订命名常规

en命名常规中关于条目命名中立性的解释：

“

Neutrality in article titles

Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.

Non-neutral but common names

When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use.

Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:

Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. Thus, typing "Octomom" properly redirects to Nadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point 2, above. Typing "Antennagate" redirects the reader to a particular section of iPhone 4, which is in keeping with points 1 and 2, above. Typing "Great Leap Forward" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle.

Non-judgmental descriptive titles

In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)

However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)

”

条目标题的中立性

有时会出现经常条目标题是否符合维基百科中立观点政策的冲突。解决此类争论取决于条目标题是来自可靠来源的名称还是由维基百科编辑们创建的描述性标题。

不中立但常用的标题

当一篇文章的主题主要由一个常用名称引述时，正如其在绝大多数英语（本地应该“中文”）来源中使用所证明的那样，维基百科通常会遵循这些来源并使用该名称作为其条目标题（同时受其他命名标准的约束）。有时，这个常用名称包括了维基百科通常避免的非中立用词（例如“伟大的亚历山大”（Alexander the Great）、“茶壶山丑闻案”（Teapot Dome scandal））。在这种情况下，名称的普遍性，或者一个给定的描述已经有效地成为一个专有名词（并且该专有名词已经成为常用名称）的事实，通常会压倒对维基百科可能出现的支持某一方问题的担忧。带有非中立词的文章标题不能简单地认为在过去是常用的，它应该是现在常用的。

维基百科经常因缺乏中立性而避免使用通用名称的值得注意的情况包括：

几年后似乎不太可能被记住或与特定问题相关的时髦口号和绰号
显然地能被更百科全书式替代的俗话

条目标题和重定向应该预测读者首先输入什么，并与读者期望的内容进行平衡。所以，输入“Octomom”能被重定向到“Nadya Suleman”，对应上面的第2点。输入“Antennagate（天线门）”会被重定向到“iPhone 4”的其中一个章节（天线门事件），对应上面第1、2点。输入“Great Leap Forward（大跃进）”不应该被重定向，这符合普遍常识。

非批判性的描述性标题

在某些情况下，描述性短语（例如“大沼泽区的恢复（Restoration of the Everglades）”）最适合作为标题，这通常是专门为该条目发明的，应该反映中立的观点，而不是暗示任何编辑的意见。避免使用批判性和非中立词语，例如“指控”或“指称”可能暗示有不法行为；或者在非犯罪语境下，可能暗示“在很少或没有证据的情况”提出的主张，因此应该避免在描述性标题中使用。（例外：条目主题是法律规定的非法行为的实际指控，即使尚未在法庭上得到证实，但由于可靠来源对此进行讨论过，这些能被恰当地描述为“指控”。）

然而，非中立但常用的标题（见前面内容）可以使被用在描述性标题中。即使是描述性标题，也应以资料来源为基础，因此可以纳入资料来源中常用的名称和术语。（例子：因为“Boston Massacre”是可以接受的标题，所以“茶壶山丑闻案的政治影响（Political impact of the Boston Massacre）”也是可以接受。）

en的中立性中关于条目命名的解释：

“

In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned. It may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names).

Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, names such as "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", and "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

Some article titles are descriptive rather than being an actual name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

”

实现中立

命名

在某些情况下，为一个主题选择的名称可能给人产生一种偏见的感觉。虽然中立术语通常更可取，但这必须与清晰度相平衡。如果一个名字在可靠来源（尤其是那些用英文（对应的话就是中文）编写的）中被广泛使用，很可能被读者更好地识别出来，即使有些人可能认为它有偏见，但也可以使用它。例如，广泛使用的名称“Boston Massacre（波士顿大屠杀，英国称为“国王街事件”）”、“Teapot Dome scandal（茶壶山丑闻案）”和“Jack the Ripper（开膛手杰克）”都是合规地指代其相关主题，尽管可能看起来是在进行判断。用于某个主题的最佳名称可能取决于提及它的上下文；提及替代名称及其使用的争议可能是合适的，特别是当前所讨论的问题正是正在讨论的主题时。尽管可能有多个术语常用，但应根据命名常规（以及其他命名规定）选择一个名称作为文章标题。

不鼓励为了分列观点而使用组合替代名称来作为条目标题。例如，不应使用“Derry/Londonderry（德里 (北爱尔兰)的不同称呼）”、“Aluminium/Aluminum（铝的英语不同拼写）”或“Flat Earth (Round Earth)（地平说与地圆说）”。但同样，替代名称应在文章本身中得到应有的重视并酌情创建重定向。

有些条目标题是描述性的，而不仅是其实际名称。描述性标题的措辞应保持中立，以免暗示支持或反对某个主题的观点，或将文章的内容限制在某个问题特定方面的观点（例如，标题为“X 的批评”的条目可能最好改名为“社会对 X 的看法”）。中立的标题鼓励多种观点以及负责任的条目写作。