Restructure wiki page key:name?

Hungerburg · 2024-05-07T22:55:26.619Z

dieterdreist:

A proper name is a specific type of proper noun that is used to identify an individual person, place, or thing uniquely. […] For example, “John Smith” is a proper name for a person,

John Smith really makes for a bad GUID. I think your take on the subject sums it up quite niceley This philosophy talk will not ever bring us anywhere. I studied philosophy and what I read here makes me feel ashamed due to how this discipline gets portrayed here.

E.g. Metro is a name. It is not unique when applied to a company, it is not unique when applied to a shop, it is not unique when applied to the Tube. Its still a proper name for any instance of any of that, or what we in Austria call an Eigenname and the Romans called nomen proprium. It is just that in the English language the term proper name got out of fashion and nowadays people prefer to use proper noun – at least that is how i interpret the native speakers contributions here.

Robhubi · 2024-05-08T17:24:49.054Z

Many thanks for the answers. I have understood that the term “proper name” is perceived as annoying in the English-speaking community and should rather be avoided.

In the context of the proposal, “proper name” and “proper noun” were synonymous for me. Swapping the terms therefore does not change the content.

The key messages of the proposal with the wording corresponding to the grammatical concept:

the tag “name” for an object in OSM contains the proper noun of this object in the real world
Proper nouns refer to specific objects (individual names)
Common noun refer to a group of objects (group names)
Descriptive names provide easy identification

I will revise the proposal accordingly. But please be a little patient.

osmuser63783 · 2024-05-08T17:42:39.769Z

Small nitpick, to say it should contain the “proper noun of an object” doesn’t make sense to me. I would say something like:

The name tag will usually contain a proper noun, such as ‘McDonald’s’, not a common noun, such as ‘toilet’, or a description, such as ‘informal path’.

hoserab · 2024-05-09T02:20:49.367Z

Robhubi:

The key messages of the proposal with the wording corresponding to the grammatical concept:

the tag “name” for an object in OSM contains the proper noun of this object in the real world

Proper nouns refer to specific objects (individual names)

Common noun refer to a group of objects (group names)

Descriptive names provide easy identification

I very, very strongly suggest avoiding giving these terms OSM-specific definitions. They already have commonly understood definitions. If your rewrite of these wiki articles needs a glossary then frankly you’ve gone astray, in my opinion.

It’s not your use of the term “proper name” that is “annoying”. What’s causing the strife and confusion is that you’re trying to give “proper name”—and now, “proper noun” and “common noun”—a very specific, narrow definition that clashes with the term’s common understanding.

Your proposed definitions fall apart pretty quickly. If a proper noun “refers to specific objects” and common nouns “refer to a group of objects”, what do I name something that consists of a plural? What do I name (e.g.) “The Bahamas”, then, if I’m only supposed to use “individual names”? And if you tell people “descriptive names provide easy identification” it begs the question, “… well then why don’t I do that, if it’s easily understood?”

@osmuser63783 's small example above gets this point across in a very concise way, to me. You see here that they’re giving examples of what proper nouns, common nouns and descriptions are, rather than trying to define (or redefine) them:

The name tag will usually contain a proper noun, such as ‘McDonald’s’, not a common noun, such as ‘toilet’, or a description, such as ‘informal path’.

Mateusz_Konieczny · 2024-05-09T09:19:34.441Z

Robhubi:

Descriptive names provide easy identification

Not really?

name=Tree on each natural=tree does not provide easy identification, is a descriptive name

name=Lidl does provide easy identification (in a given area), is not a descriptive name

jumbanho · 2024-05-09T13:46:10.234Z

osmuser63783:

Small nitpick, to say it should contain the “proper noun of an object” doesn’t make sense to me. I would say something like:

The name tag will usually contain a proper noun, such as ‘McDonald’s’, not a common noun, such as ‘toilet’, or a description, such as ‘informal path’.

I like this a lot, but IMHO I think it might be clearer if you use one example, so

The name tag will usually contain a proper noun, such as “McDonald’s”, not a common noun, such as “restaurant”, or a description, such as “a fast food restaurant that specializes in hamburgers”

Robhubi · 2024-05-15T19:34:07.260Z

hoserab:

Robhubi:

The key messages of the proposal with the wording corresponding to the grammatical concept …

I very, very strongly suggest avoiding giving these terms OSM-specific definitions.

I briefly considered replacing “proper name” with “proper noun” in the proposal, but I quickly backed away from it. The proposal is explicitly aimed at all language communities, so it makes little sense to refer to English grammar.

I’m still thinking about how I can replace “proper name” without losing precision and translatability.

hoserab:

It’s not your use of the term “proper name” that is “annoying”. What’s causing the strife and confusion is that you’re trying to give “proper name”—and now, “proper noun” and “common noun”—a very specific, narrow definition that clashes with the term’s common understanding.

The definition of “proper name” is not mine, but a reproduction of the references I gave in Post #105.

hoserab:

Your proposed definitions fall apart pretty quickly. If a proper noun “refers to specific objects” and common nouns “refer to a group of objects”, what do I name something that consists of a plural? What do I name (e.g.) “The Bahamas”, then, if I’m only supposed to use “individual names”?

The plural is completely irrelevant. Please refer to the definitions in the proposal. “The Bahamas” is the proper name and also the individual name of a region.

hoserab:

And if you tell people “descriptive names provide easy identification” it begs the question, “… well then why don’t I do that, if it’s easily understood?”

hoserab:

@osmuser63783 's small example above gets this point across in a very concise way, to me. You see here that they’re giving examples of what proper nouns, common nouns and descriptions are, rather than trying to define (or redefine) them:

Neither common names nor descriptions are defined in the proposal. These are terms used in everyday language; examples are sufficient here. This does not apply to the “nomen proprium” (en: proper name/noun, de: proper name, fr: nom propre, es: nombre propio). It cannot be assumed that this term is self-explanatory in all language communities. A definition is necessary to understand the context.

Robhubi · 2024-05-15T19:37:16.472Z

@osmuser63783, @jumbanho: Thanks for the constructive suggestion. I like it very much.

Unfortunately it only works in English-speaking countries. Neither DeepL nor Google Translate can understandably translate this sentence into my native language. DeepL fails because of “proper noun” and “common noun”, Google because of “common noun”.

One would have to use simpler terms, perhaps like this?

The name tag will usually contain a individual name, such as “McDonald’s”, not a generic name such as “restaurant”, or a description, such as “a fast food restaurant that specializes in hamburgers”.

Both DeepL and Google Translate can handle this.

ezekielf · 2024-05-16T13:13:43.356Z

Robhubi:

Neither DeepL nor Google Translate can understandably translate this sentence into my native language.

The fact that machine translation doesn’t do a good job translating the article is not a good reason to change it. Translation is difficult and although the machines often do an admirable job it’s not surprising that some nuance is lost.

hoserab · 2024-05-16T16:09:45.783Z

Robhubi:

I briefly considered replacing “proper name” with “proper noun” in the proposal, but I quickly backed away from it. The proposal is explicitly aimed at all language communities, so it makes little sense to refer to English grammar.

Rob: rewriting an English article while ignoring English grammar is ridiculous.

This entire discussion, and your entire premise, has devolved into ridiculous circular reasoning. You’re persistently wanting to use the term proper name—in English—in the context of how it’s used in German, Latin, French, Spanish, etc.—and quite pointedly not how it’s used in English—because you want to make it easier for an online translator to translate the English article into German and other languages.

You are wrecking English comprehensibility in the name of (AI) translatability: that is, quite frankly, nuts. I have to agree wholeheartedly with Zeke:

Zeke Farwell:

The fact that machine translation doesn’t do a good job translating the article is not a good reason to change it.

I’ll go a step further and say that not only is that “not a good reason”: that’s a horrendous reason to change it.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-05-16T16:41:37.185Z

Robhubi:

Neither DeepL nor Google Translate can understandably translate this sentence into my native language. DeepL fails because of “proper noun” and “common noun”, Google because of “common noun”.

Google Translate is notoriously poor at translating into German specifically. For what it’s worth, it correctly translates “proper noun” and “common noun” in the two other languages I speak (Spanish and Vietnamese). DeepL is reputed to be better with German, but it’s a less mature service, so maybe there are bugs in some cases.

In any case, I think we need to remember that there already is a German version of the article. If German-speaking mappers prefer to consult the English-language documentation over the documentation in their native language, maybe there should be a discussion about why that is. Do the German pages have a reputation for being outdated or harder to understand than the English ones? Do editors make it too difficult to access the German pages? (It’s a good thought exercise for any language, of course.)

Some widely spoken languages don’t have very much documentation at all on the wiki, so it’s only natural that they’d fall back on the English-language documentation. However, to the extent that we accommodate these users, we should consider linking out to a more comprehensively translated resource like Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Ideally, we would only devise our own custom definition when no everyday concept neatly corresponds to what we need to document.

Hungerburg · 2024-05-16T22:11:02.296Z

Minh_Nguyen:

Google Translate is notoriously poor at translating into German specifically.

No idea where you got that from I see varying results from bing, deepl and google, both ways.

All I see here is a person wanting to rewrite the English documentation all the while showing limited command of the English language. I guess the reason is, because the English documentation is taken to be the master/blueprint for translations – an idea that is not only met with joy, see talk about machine translation for the Wiki pages.

Regarding German peculiarities (Not a Germanist speaking): Noun is a grammatical term (Substantiv or Hauptwort in German). Name is not a grammatical term (semantics perhaps?). All names are nouns. The other way around, I do not think so. But it does not matter much, because we uppercase nouns, not just names. I do not think we have “proper nouns”, this just does not make sense and there is no need for it either.

dieterdreist · 2024-05-17T06:55:17.000Z

Regarding German peculiarities (Not a Germanist speaking): Noun is a grammatical term (Substantiv or Hauptwort in German). Name is not a grammatical term (semantics perhaps?).

well there is https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen

Robhubi · 2024-05-19T20:14:31.712Z

Zeke Farwell:

The fact that machine translation doesn’t do a good job translating the article is not a good reason to change it.

Which article are you referring to?
The proposal to restructure the article key:name refers to the main article names. Neither “proper noun” nor “common noun” appear in this very long article (“proper name”, on the other hand, appears several times). The terms “proper noun” and “common noun” are also not used in the current article key:name.

The main article names and the current article key:name make no reference to the grammatical concept. I think this is appropriate and want to keep it in the restructured text.

hoserab:

Rob: rewriting an English article while ignoring English grammar is ridiculous.

The vast majority of people (82%) do not speak English. What is ridiculous about the idea of taking this group into account?

Minh_Nguyen:

In any case, I think we need to remember that there already is a German version of the article.

The German version has none of the problems we are discussing here. I really wish there was also an EN:key:name (OT).

alan_gr · 2024-05-19T20:53:05.216Z

Robhubi:

The proposal to restructure the article key:name refers to the main article names. Neither “proper noun” nor “common noun” appear in this very long article (“proper name”, on the other hand, appears several times).

But “proper name” seems to be used only in the context of spelling and capitalisation - i.e. it tries to clarify how a name should be entered once you have decided what it is, but does not define what the name should be in the first place. I’m still not fully clear what it means, but it doesn’t really affect the understanding of that article as it is not presented as a fundamental concept.

(Also, I think that article never referred to proper names until lesd than a year ago).

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-05-19T20:58:29.202Z

Robhubi:

Minh_Nguyen:

In any case, I think we need to remember that there already is a German version of the article.

The German version has none of the problems we are discussing here. I really wish there was also an EN:key:name (OT).

Yes, we’re getting off-topic here, but just to avoid further misunderstanding: the “Key:name” article is the article in English, primarily intended for English speakers (including yourself – you don’t have to be a native speaker). Yes, it’s unfair that English is the wiki’s default language. The same can be said of many aspects of OSM, including the raw tags’ names. (Language-neutral concept IDs are one of the things Wikidata got right with its ontology.) Someday the powers that be will install the Translate extension and we’ll have more tools for making other languages more accessible.

In the meantime, if there’s a risk that native speakers of any language besides English will misunderstand the article, we can certainly add some text to clarify the unusual situation in English. There’s plenty of precedent for this on the wiki, especially when the major dialects of English disagree with each other. However, nothing I’ve seen in this thread so far suggests to me that English is particularly unusual in the fact that its speakers are more familiar with the grammatical concept of a proper noun than the semantic concept of a proper name.

dieterdreist · 2024-05-19T21:00:25.484Z

Robhubi:

The vast majority of people (82%) do not speak English.

while the number seems correct, it is still misleading, because it counts also babies and children. If you only count people which are at least 14 years old, the total population number decreases by 26%

hoserab · 2024-05-19T22:15:21.893Z

hoserab:

Rob: rewriting an English article while ignoring English grammar is ridiculous.

Robhubi:

The vast majority of people (82%) do not speak English. What is ridiculous about the idea of taking this group into account?

If you don’t understand how ignoring English grammar when writing in English is patently ridiculous then you shouldn’t touch any of the English articles on the wiki.

It’s too bad that your original blog post points out some very valid limitations and problems with the English articles such as they were, but the more you’ve interacted with myself and others in this discussion thread the more you’ve demonstrated your command of the English language is insufficient to make the kind of wholesale changes you want to make.

Fizzie41 · 2024-05-19T23:06:45.951Z

Robhubi:

majority of people (82%) do not speak English

Yes, but English is still the most used language!

Mateusz_Konieczny · 2024-05-19T23:29:49.746Z

Robhubi:

hoserab:

Rob: rewriting an English article while ignoring English grammar is ridiculous.

The vast majority of people (82% ) do not speak English. What is ridiculous about the idea of taking this group into account?

Ignoring English grammar is not taking this group into account, it makes their life harder as they need to deal not only with text in foreign language but also with additional idiosyncratic and unusual changes.

If you want to help them: you can improve OSM Wiki translations.

(making article text in English as easy to understand as possible, not using confusing phrases and terms or complex grammar is a good idea! But it is opposite to “ignoring English grammar”)