I am asking for additional opinions regarding Template:Eastern name order Transerd (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag says The native form of this personal name is horogszegi gróf Szilágyi Mihály. This article uses the Western name order.. This would be suitable if the used form in the article would be Mihály Szilágyi (Hu name in the unnatural order), but in this case the English name is different of the Hungarian one, which is presented between parantheses in the natural Eastern order Transerd (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, don't decide what is natural and what is "unnatural" name order... --Norden1990 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The order family-name given-name is commonly known as the Eastern order and is used in Hungary. The order family-name given-name is natural in Hungarian. The order given-name family-name is unnatural in Hungarian. Template:Eastern name order is needed when the articles uses the Hungarian name in the unnatural order. In the current case the English name is different of the Hugnarian name, which is presented (already in the Eastern order), between parantheses Transerd (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand something: that template starts with "The native form of this personal name is ...", thus it provides information about his original name (before his first name was translated to English). We could provide his name in many other languages, as well (simply by translating the name "Michael"), still his native name would remain the same. Take a look at the examples of: John von Neumann, Susan Polgar, Edward Teller, Eugene Wigner, Arthur Koestler, George Andrew Olah, Maurice Benyovszky, Gabriel Bethlen, etc. They all have their first names translated to English, still the articles start with giving information of their native names and the original order of their names. The same practice should be followed here. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and Norden1990 are the ones who misinterpret the template. The text is "The native form of this personal name is ...", and not the ""The native name of this person is ..."" (it does not refer to the birth name of this guy, but to the native/original/natural form of the name ). A correct use is for instance at János Áder article, which manipulates the unnatural Western form János Áder, instead of the native form Áder János. The template has to be eliminated from the other articles as well, thanks for bringing them into attention. Transerd (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get your argument: the "native/original/natural form of the name" is "Szilágyi Mihály", so why do you think that this template is misused? And please stop removing the template from other articles until we reach a consensus. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the template starts with "The native form of this personal name", where "this personal name" refers to the name in the title, not to the native Hungarian name. Please read the usage here Template:Eastern name order. This template indicates that the article uses Western name order, for cases when the native form of the article subject's name is family name followed by given name, but the English-language Wikipedia article uses the opposite order.. This would imply that the native form of the article subject's name is family name followed by given name, namely Szilágyi Michael, which is wrong.

To make a pun, the native form of his native name is Szilágyi Mihály. The template would be appropriate if the English name would be identical with the Hungarian name. In this case, the article would use the inverted form Mihály Szilágyi (the Western name order). But here the English name is different (Michael Szilágyi) and the Hungarian name is presented in parenthesis in the natural (Eastern) order. The native form of the English name "Michael Szilágyi" is "Michael Szilágyi"Transerd (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the description of that template is vague. They probably had the Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, etc., names in mind. In their case, however, the given names typically cannot be translated to English. The Hungarian language is special in that sense, since many Hungarian given names have English/Latin/etc. equivalents and, especially in older works, it was customary to translate the given names. If you delete the template, e.g., from the article about Gabriel Bethlen, then you also delete the information about his native name. Notice that his name is also given in other languages (Romanian, German) so if we deleted the template, the average reader would lose the information about his original/native name. That's why it is important to have these templates, even if the given names of the person is replaced by their English (or Latin) equivalents. Consequently, the description of the template should be refined to mention these cases, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have to repeat myself. The template is not about the native name (birth name) of the person, but about the native form of a personal name. It is about the order in which the parts of the name in the title are arranged. It is usable when the English name is identical with the Hungarian name, with the only difference that in English the Western name order is used, while in Hungarian the Eastern name order. Its role is to inform the reader that the natural form of the name is for example Áder János, not János Áder as the article uses it. It somehow replaces the repetition János Áder (Hungarian: Áder János).

In Michael Szilágyi article, the template just does not make sense. The final sentence from the template text is This article uses the Western name order., which is not necessary, because an English name (Michael Szilágyi) is naturally written in the Western name order

The Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian names have a special template dedicated to them: Template:Chinese name, Template:Japanese name, Template:Korean name and Template:Indian name Transerd (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have to repeat myself ;-), the template should cover these special cases, as well, when the given names are translated to English. Since, the template says: "The native form of this personal name is ..." (and not "the native order of this..."), I do not see any problem with using this template here. On the other hand, an even better solution could be to modify the template Template:Hungarian name to directly mention this situation (i.e., translated first names), as well. This might be a long-term solution to this issue. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This particular template is not intended to highlight the birth name of a person whose given name is anglicized in English-language sources (and implicitly on en.wp). Its goal is to indicate that an individual's name order is inverted in the article (like for János Áder). There are hundreds articles where the given name is distinct in English and the birth name is simply mentioned in parantheses (e.g. Ferdinand Magellan). This article should respect the same practice. The Hungarian name in paranthesis is already in the natural (Eastern) order Transerd (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koertefa, should I interpret your silence as an acceptance of my explanation? Transerd (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should interpret it as "Koertefa is busy, but he plans to answer". :) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I find myself in agreement with Kœrtefa. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a legalistic reading of the template documentation is contrary to Wikipedia practice - all that matters is what results from using the template. To wit, it presents the native name, where its order is different from the common English name, and links to explanatory material about name order in different cultures. Both pieces of information a definitely pertinent for the heading of this article, so the template is appropriate. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not right. The template affirms The native form of this personal name is horogszegi gróf Szilágyi Mihály - where this refers to the name from the title. So it can be expanded to The native form of the personal name Michael Szilágyi is horogszegi gróf Szilágyi Mihály - this sounds illogical. It is not the same to The native name of Michael Szilágyi is horogszegi gróf Szilágyi Mihály. If the template would be meant to indicate the native name, it would be applicable to all names, not only to the ones that naturally are written in Eastern name order Transerd (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that to be a legalistic and erroneous line of reasoning. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 12:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is a logical reasining, not legalistic reasonong. Don't you really perceive the semantic difference between "native form of a personal name" and "native name"? Transerd (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transerd, I do not get the problem. Your opening statement here reads untrue: if the used form would be [Western] Mihály Szilágyi ... Would be? The used form is the English form, also in the title. Later on, you mean form is not sequence? this sounds illogical? - it sounds logical to me. Do you propose to change the wording for the same essence (something about 'form' or 'native'?), or do you want to put different information there all together (maybe like saying 'the English name of Michael Szilágyi is Michael Szilágyi', which is true but trivial)?

I'll note where the template comes from. It is a hatnote, and so it is there for one reason: to inform the reader so that he or she can check if he/she is on the right page. That is the reason, for every hatnote. In this Michael Szilágyi case, native name order differs from Western order. The hatnote {{Eastern name order}} is there to assure the reader that the article is about the same person, although the sequence is different. Because the reader might arrive on this page searching with the Eastern name sequence. This hatnote information is useful and correct as a hatnote. (It is not about the spelling differences of the name; if confusion could arise from that, another hatnote may be appropriate). -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The used form is the English form" - that is what I am saying, the English name in the title (that is referred by the template with the pronoun this personal name) is already presented in the natural Western order (Michael + Szilágyi ). If the visitor arrives on this page by searching the native Hungarian name in the Eastern name sequence (Szilágyi Mihály) he can easily be assured that he is on the correct page by reading the Hungarian name in paranthesis, which is given in the natural family name + given name sequence (Hungarian: horogszegi gróf Szilágyi Mihály Transerd (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that is what I am saying - no, not in your third sentence [1]. It says: would be ... but, not is. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think it is a wholly inappropriate splitting of hairs. The fact that you are trying to glean semantic nuance from phrasing that is intrinsically utilitarian is the epitome of WP:Wikilawyering. It is an attitude completely foreign to how Wikipedia works, and is actively detrimental to achieving consensus.

Fact: the native name here is in a different order than the common English name. We are going to have a subset of readers who find this page by searching for the Hungarian name, and those readers need to know that they are in the right place; it's probably a pretty good idea that they have some understanding of why the term they searched for landed on something that looks quite a bit different. This template does just that: it informs readers, right at the top of the article, that the name order has been jostled around, and how that happens. You can split hairs and try to read exceptions and exclusions into the plain purpose of the template, but the end result is that you are arguing that readers not be informed about the differences in foreign and English name styles. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 13:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so by your opinion this template applies for any person (of any nationality/ethnicity) who has also a Hungarian name version in the Eastern name order? Transerd (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but Michael (Mihály) Szilágyi was a Hungarian statesman, thus the template to be used in his case. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk for example about the readers that arrive on Johannes Caioni (who is an ethnic Romanian, his native name is not Kájoni János) by searching the Hungarian name Kájoni János in the Eastern order. Don't they also "need some understanding of why the term they searched for landed on something that looks quite a bit different."? Transerd (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What point is this example supposed to show? whose name is not Kájoni János??? - so there is an error there? Why not edit that out? Otherwise I'd say this page Johannes Caioni could use the same hatnote indeed for the right reason: Western name reversal. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transerd, what is your proposal? -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, VanIsaa and DePiep, for joining the conversation. I think that Transerd's problem is that the template shouldn't be applied, since the given name of this person is translated to English, so it is not a simple order change. I disagree with this and also think that it looks like splitting of hairs. However, we may even update the Template:Hungarian name to be more precise and include this case (translated first names), as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer now. I do not like adding words about the translation into the hatnote text. Simply because the translation does not cause the problem of possible confusion (=the hatnote reason), only the switching is. BTW I edited this and thisto stress the hatnote task and because the Hungarian name in the hatnote is formallly not part of the article itself (for example, it is not printed). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of this template is the following: The native form of the name in the title is family name + given name, but this article uses the (unnatural) Western name order. It applies to articles where the name in the title is the reversed Hungarian name (József Alvinczi or Gusztáv Jány). More exactly it informs the visitor that the names are normally written as Alvinczi József or Jány Gusztáv, but in the wikipedia articles the family name and the given name are reversed to fit into the convetion of using the Western name order. I see "the native form of the name" as meaning "The natural (matter-of-course) order of the components of the name in the title", not "The birth name of the person"

The example with Johannes Caioni and Kájoni János was meant to show that the reader can also reach an article about a person whose native (birth) name is not Hungarian by searching a sequence family name + given name. By your argument, we must include the hatnote in all articles that also have an alternative Hungarian name, irrespective of the nationality or ethnicity Transerd (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Now I get it. About 'native'. I think the word native in English (and in this WP) means something like local (as opposed to: anglicised). This meaning of "native" is also used with place names, like Vienna (native name: "Wien" in the infobox), so it is used almost everywere. Your reading is the opposite, like meaning 'natural' (natural in English). If the meaning is indeed confusing as you say, contradicting even (I am not sure, I am not that good in English language) it better be changed. Into "Hungarian" maybe (or generic "Eastern Eurpean"?). But if the confusion has no base in English language, we could ask you to change your perception of the word! So we have to research somehow (ask someone) whether your reading is also correct.

About the other examples. Yes, I think the hatnote template could be used on these other pages to for the same good reason. And indeed, not based on nationality or ethnicity, but only because the name is switched in English. As a WP reader myself I am used to Western names, and so such a simple good clarification about what is the family name in another culture is always welcome. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the template unncessary for the cases like this one where the English name (the name in the title) is different, for a very simple reason: the Hungarian names appears in paranthesis in the Eastern order, so the reader can easily guess that in Hungarian the natural order is family name + given name. Transerd (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point has some validity. But isn't this the same for about every hatnote? Say, hatnotes for {{Other ships}}, as used in USS Thompson (DD-305) and USS Thompson (DD-627). Here too each ship is well defined and described in the leads, so formally and factually a reader indeed can check whether this is the right page, without a hatnote. Still, it is not that helpfull don't you think? (Though, in the ship's example, it is worse because the reader cannot not see or guess the other ships name he is looking for). I think a reader unfamiliar with Hungarian naming convention is helped with the hatnote for clarification.

I can add. Your point is addressed earlier at here and here, for all these hatnotes for names. The gest is: this information should not be in a hatnote, but in the lead - then my requirement is that it should not loose information (if the hatnote explains what is the family name, that information should be in the article somehow before deleting the hatnote). That discussion has not given a new approach yet. I must note that this here template does not point to a "family name", but other name template do. Having the information: "family name is Szilágyi" and maybe "This is a Hungarian naming custom" in the article (or footnote) looks very good to me. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about a note attached to the Hungarian name, like here? Transerd (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I had in mind. Of course we'd like it templated and standardised, and specifying "family name" where possible. Please do not mass-edit this way, but continue the talk at WP:HATNOTE. And, it still could be that others think the switched name should be on top for the old reasons (help the reader). -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's check another hatnote template for names. The text of Template:Mongolian name starts with "This is a Mongolian name.". The analogous text for Template:Hungarian name would be "This is a Hungarian name.". Is that true in the current case? No! Because Michale Szilágyi is an English name. The Hungarian name is Szilágyi Mihály. Transerd (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should continue at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote. There is a list of all these name templates. This talk page is too out of sight to make general changes. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand if you finally agree with my arguments or not Transerd (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply: then don't change it into Hungarian name (your problem is solved). But: it may be read as Hungarian culture, not Hungarian language. So the text also says: This is a Hungarian culture name. Natively spelled: .... The family name is .... Now I must say: you are not really trying to make things clear for readers, do you? -DePiep (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can read in paranthesis how the name is natively spelled... Transerd (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push your opinion into the article, before the debate is not closed. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are full cycle: now I am to repeat arguments for the hatnote I have mentioned earlier. That means the discussion may be ending without consensus to change anything. Here it is: The hatnote informs the reader about the name, and shows what the family name is. The native name itself does not. -DePiep (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get what Transerd's real problem is with the template. I hardly believe that it is really just the usage of the word "form". If this was the case, he would agree with modifying the Hungarian name template to something like: "the native name of this person is...". Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take for instance the case of Template:Chinese name. It is used only for articles where the English name is identical with the Chinese one (e.g. Ye Jianying), not also for Chinese peope that have a different English name (Jackie Chan) Transerd (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that "Jackie" is the translation of "Kong-sang". ;) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That is not relevant, it is important only that the English given name is different of the Chinese given name Transerd (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this ridiculous provocations. Your arguments are false and absurd. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Transerd's issue with this template has been shifting along the thread. Combined with not proposing any alternative, this is endless (or as Vanisaac said: hair splitting). Maybe it was only a please-explain excercise. I conclude that there is no consensus (what would it be about?), and so no changes will happen. Since there is still no proposal, we can close this thread. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with closing this, as we are getting nowhere. Nevertheless, thanks for your help. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to close this thread. Conclusion is: no consensus. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Transerd (creator)
• User:DePiep Close it. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Norden1990 Close it. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (as Oppose, of course. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
• User:Koertefa [2] said close it (added by -DePiep (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)) I should not do this, he can speak for himself. -DePiep (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Vanisaac

I don't think there's any lack of consensus at all. Every commenting editor disagrees with the originator of the RfC. That's a WP:SNOW close as Oppose the proposal. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and based on the comments I also think that an "Oppose" is well-founded. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Transerd was banned, I removed the above tag. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]