Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style, or visit the project page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page.
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh Open tasks

Contents 1 Names of royalty 2 The ʻokina question 2.1 LSQUO, ‘, works better than { { okina } }, ʻ 3 Names of monarchs 3.1 Discussion 3.2 some wording 4 First draft 5 Names of places

[edit] Names of royalty

There is currently some disagreement over how articles on Hawaiian royals should be named. Perhaps we should develop specific conventions on how to title such articles.

For example, a user recently suggested that Victoria Kaiulani be renamed to either Princess Victoria Kaiulani, Victoria Kaiulani, Princess of Hawaii, or Princess Victoria Kaiulani of Hawaii. I have no objection to any of the three names at this present moment (except maybe that the "of Hawaii" part is redundant, as Hawaiian names are unique to Hawaii unlike European names), as long as there is a set standard and that all articles about Hawaiian royals follow the same conventions.

Further reference

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) —

Any input? Mahalo nui loa, 青い(Aoi) 04:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have seen both the first two used in hawaii so I am somewhat unsure of the correct choice. However, I do find the "of hawaii" to be redundant. My vote, tentatively, is for The first form with adequate documentation That they are hawaiian nobility. Avriette 05:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Concluded from the earlier discussions, the consensus now exists that Hawaiian royalty does not need "of Hawaii", basically the first name of the person suffices. This seems a good convention. I agree to it. 217.140.193.123 09:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Moreover, titles are unnecessary - even in European naming conventions, kings and suchlike do not have their royal titles in the heading of the article (and this despite there being much royalty nuts and protocol-minded people in Europe). My opinion is to keep such titles away from Hawaiian headings too, if not absolutely necessary for disambiguation purposes. 217.140.193.123 14:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the first two are acceptable (i.e., no "of Hawaii"), although my preference would be for "Princess Kaiulani" as I consider that the most widely used locally and probably beyond (my wife teaches at Kaiulani School), but I am surprised to "hear" that it is not common practice to include the title when refering to European royalty. Outside of their own country, no one would really know who you were talking about if you just said "Philip did such and such today..."; the royalty title is very much a part of the distinction of the person. And, it would seem if you are going for consistency, the Princess should really be under Princess Kaiulani Cleghorn - Marshman 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. I never really thought about it until now, but it does seem that everyone refers to the princess as "Princess Kaiulani," i.e. the Princess Kaiulani Hotel. 青い(Aoi) 04:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Princess" could be left from the heading. However, if all you feel that it is absolutely necessary, I will acquiesce. (If naming so, then there will be a bunch of articles which begin "Prince/ss" and clog into a bunch in an alphabetical list - in encyclopedias, articles should be found by not knowing whether the subject was a princess or an oyster or whatever - such clogging to "princess" works thus a little against the encyclopedic purpose)
re Philip, as he has a peerage title, Duke of Edinburgh, it is used here in the heading - "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". 217.140.193.123 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, how would you base the desire to have "Cleghorn" there? When dealing with royalty, we tend to avoid surnames, as royalty traditionally often did not have such and most usually did not use one (even if some royal had such). 217.140.193.123 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I must ask whether "Victoria" is a part of her widely known name??? Or, is it just some addition from birth registers or from too-religious minded archivists who want to remember all christian names... If it is not well known, it should probably be dropped. (After all, Kalakaua, Lunalilo etc are without such. 217.140.193.123 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I wish for simplicity, and also for uphelding the name with which the object is best known. When those are determined, the consistency should be built upon such considerations. 217.140.193.123 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please kindly all visit Wikipedia:Requested moves, where Liliuokalani and Lunalilo have now been triggered towards move, as initiated by a certain Gryffindor. 217.140.193.123 17:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest to either use the form Title+name+Hawaii, or Title+name. There are plenty of other precedents for such a format. Gryffindor 17:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The ʻokina question

I am a "Unicode fan" and have been trying to be typographically and philologically correct, entering ʻokina as ʻ . But now I notice everyone else is still using ‘ , even though of course one would not want software to parse it as a quotation mark. Is there a decision on a "standard" method, and if so what is it?
--IslandGyrl 23:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a written standard on Wikipedia, but this issue has been discussed on Talk:Hawaiian language and Talk:Hawaii. There have been efforts in the past to redo the Hawaii article using ʻ but these efforts have been quickly reverted. I can't remember the exact reasoning for it.

The University of Hawaii at Hilo (home of the Hawaiian Language Center and the only graduate program in Hawaiian in the nation) uses Unicode on its pages [1], and if there were any expert opinion I would follow, it would be them. That said, I think one should read a message by Keola Donaghy (Assistant Professor of Hawaiian Studies at UH-Hilo) posted on Talk:Hawaiian language (at the bottom of the page). 青い(Aoi) 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What I gather from reading the material cited above is that &#699; is indeed 100% desirable and correct but may not display properly in some (older, pre-Unicode) browsers / fonts. Would there be a way to have MediaWiki, the underlying software, continue to store the source string &#699; in its databases but (provided <nowiki> is not in effect) substitute the string &lsquo; for it during the step that generates the HTML sent to the user? This would solve an identical problem that arises with other uses of the &#699; character, such as in transliterated Arabic.

I see that Diderot just changed all the occurrences of &#699; I inserted in the spam musubi article back to &lsquo; … (sigh) --IslandGyrl 19:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why it is frustrating. A policy should be written up on this. As for MediaWiki, I'm not a developer, but such a feature can be suggested on MetaWiki or MediaZilla. 青い(Aoi) 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A word of warning: there are Unicode fonts out there which don't support the 'okina. E.g. I'm using "Arial Unicode", and although Chinese, Japanese, Farsi, etc all show up fine, I get a little box in all the Hawaiian words that include the 'okina. I imagine the same will be true for many unsophisticated users of Wikipedia (i.e. the majority of our readers). So: do you want to be absolutely correct for the specialists, or mostly correct for the average person? Purity has its price... Noel (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LSQUO, ‘, works better than { { okina } }, ʻ

The 02BB (or whatever it is) character gives bad results in italics, and in the TOC box. By contrast, the LSQUO looks fine in italics, and in the TOC box, as well as in article text. It also looks fine in the edit box. Thus, the lsquo, or ‘, is a better symbol for "okina" than the 02BB.

Let's see if I can demonstrate this. Check out the following two lines.

1. a‘a --- e‘e --- i‘i --- o‘o --- u‘u
2. aʻa --- eʻe --- iʻi --- oʻo --- uʻu

Line 1 has LSQUO, line 2 has 02BB. As everyone can see, LSQUO is correctly centered, midway between its neighboring characters. By contrast, 02BB is too far to the right, creating an incorrect gap between the preceding character and 02BB. Even worse, it crowds so close to the following character that it forms a ligature with it.

Examples with uppercase vowels.

1. A‘A --- E‘E --- I‘I --- O‘O --- U‘U
2. AʻA --- EʻE --- IʻI --- OʻO --- UʻU

In the TOC box, 02BB appears as a rectangle --- incorrect. By contrast, LSQUO has the correct appearance in the TOC box. To see this, check out the TOC box for the subheading for this section. Clearly, LSQUO gives better results in more contexts than 02BB. So LSQUO should be used for the okina symbol. Agent X 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of monarchs

With user(s) requesting moves for the articles on Liliuokalani and Lunalilo, something must be done now before we have articles on Hawaiian monarchs all over the place. It would be in everyone's best interests to have a single, written naming convention for Hawaiian monarchs (as one exists now) instead of having an inconsistent string of X and X, King of Hawaii]] and King X of Hawaii. So, I'm requesting that a formal policy be written.

So far, I've seen the following formats being thrown around:

• Common name (e.g. Lunalilo) (also the status quo)
• Common name, King (Queen) of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo, King of Hawaii)
• King (Queen) Common name of Hawaii (e.g. King Lunalilo of Hawaii)
• Common name of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo of Hawaii)
• Style + Title + cristianname + hawaiianname + of Hawaii (e.g His Majesty King Charles Lunalilo of Hawaii)

If you have an alternative format suggestion, please feel free to add it here.

Please note, however, that this particular discussion is limited to the names of those who actually reigned (i.e. the Kings and Queen Regnants). Later, we can try and tackle the issue of naming consorts and "lesser" royals.

Please debate your hearts out over the above formats. Later on, when it seems like we're pretty much on the same page, we can attempt to form a concensus. If no concensus is reached, then perhaps all pages should just remain at their current locations. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the infamous Gryffindor (neé User:Antares911), whose proposals usually are pompous and full of styles + titles, is desiring something like "His (Her) Majesty King (Queen) Christianname Hawaiianname of Hawaii", and thus I add that option above, too. 217.140.193.123 06:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Please insert all discussion here. 青い(Aoi) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, for starters, I want to give a brief background of this topic. When the articles on Hawaiian monarchs were first created, they followed the format, "X of Hawaii," e.g. Kamehameha I of Hawaii. However, in mid-2004, it was suggested on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) that the "of Hawaii" part of the name be removed, and that the monarch's reigning name be used and the Christian name omitted (e.g. instead of Lydia Liliuokalani, simply Liliuokalani would suffice). The suggestion was adopted as policy with only one person opposing it. [2]

Now, some users want to change the format of the articles to make them more similar to naming conventions used in European monarchies. For example, one user wants to change the format used in Hawaiian royalty articles to the format X, King (or Queen) of Hawaii, or King (or Queen) X of Hawaii.

So far, the following suggestions have been brought up:

1. Common name (e.g. Lunalilo) (also the status quo)
2. Common name, King (Queen) of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo, King of Hawaii)
3. King (Queen) Common name of Hawaii (e.g. King Lunalilo of Hawaii)
4. Common name of Hawaii (e.g. Lunalilo of Hawaii)
5. Style + Title + cristianname + hawaiianname + of Hawaii (e.g His Majesty King Charles Lunalilo of Hawaii)
6. King (Queen) Common Name (e.g. King Lunalilo)

I would really like to see the naming convention remain the status quo, using only the common (reigning) name of the monarch. Here is my argument:

• The "of Hawaii" part is simply redundant. The reason why European monarchs include territorial disambiguation in their titles is that there are often multiple rulers from different countries that reign under the same name (i.e. Charles II of France and Charles II of England, Charles IX of Sweden and Charles IX of France). Hawaiian names are unique only to Hawaii, so such disambiguation is unnecessary. In fact, such ambiguation has been seen by some users to be too redundant. There never was and probably never will be a monarch named Kamehameha outside of Hawaii. This eliminates choices 2-5.
• With the exception of Japan, there are no countries in Wikipedia that use titles in the naming of monarchs (and even then, Japan was a special exception because it was determined that the word "Emperor" is actually a part of the monarch's posthumous name). So, I see no reason why titles should be used in Hawaiian articles. For example, even in Europe, Queen Elizabeth II is located at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This eliminates choices 2, 3, and 5.
• Styles (such as "His Majesty") are never used in article titles. This elmiinates choice 5.

For these reasons, I would prefer to see all articles on Hawaiian monarchs remain in their current locations. At the very least, redirects could (and probably should) be created to redirect all the formats above (except maybe the one that includes "His Majesty") to their proper locations. 青い(Aoi) 09:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

One of the highest forms of respect is to name a person using only the pure reign name of that monarch. Such as Liliuokalani. Using such simple name implies that the person in question is well-known without any additions. (As Liliuokalani actually is.) Very rarely any person is well-known by only one name (surnames are often needed), but several are, such as Napoleon. To accord the same to Hawaiian monarchs signifies the high respect of recognizing the person in question just by her/his one name. All additions are basically cluttering the respect. Pureness is respect, clutter is disrespect. Therefore all additions (be it territorial designation such as "of Hawaii", titulary such as king or queen, a surname, or whatever) are clutter, and should be avoided if not necessary for disambiguation. I support the first alternative (Liliuokalani, Kalakaua, Kamehameha I), and I oppose all the clutter alternatives. Arrigo 09:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I fully support to stay with option 1, using only the Hawaiian name. As stated above no ambiguity arises. It fits with general usage. For almost all other celebrities, just the name is used, without adding the profession. −Woodstone 13:30:00, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

I also prefer names, with no titles or honorifics. Zora 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

When reading the discussion on Liliuokalani, there does seem to be controversy by simply using one name. I would support Options 2, 3, 4. This would be similar to formats used on other monarchs listed on Wikipedia. Gryffindor 17:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gryffindor, your thinking on this topic is most flawed. Options 2 and 3 will not make these articles consistent with other monarchs on Wikipedia. Option 2 is used only for princely or noble titles (e.g. Charles, Prince of Wales or Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland), while option 3 is used for consorts of reigning monarchs and for some princely titles (e.g. Queen Sofía of Spain or Princess Beatrice of York). Neither are ever used when referring to monarchial titles. Both options go against Western naming conventions, so their use here would be wrong even if we did decide to follow European naming conventions. Option 4 is a possibility, as this is the format used for European monarchs.

Looking at Talk:Liliuokalani, I see two users who are in favor with moving the pages: Gryffindor (formerly Antares911) and Mowens35. Mowens35 favored the move because it followed Wikipedia naming conventions for reigning monarchs. However, he seemed to miss the point that as Hawaii was a non-western monarchy, it is not obligated to follow the naming conventions in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) as noted in exception 1 to the rules monarchial titles. I would have asked Mowens35 to join this conversation, but his User Contributions show that he has been absent from Wikipedia since May 2005 (which is a shame since he was, IMO, a great editor to work with).

On the talk page of Liliuokalani, you note your reason for favoring the move to be that, "just putting it at the current moment is disrespectful" (I assume you meant that just keeping the article at its current location would be disrespectful). First of all, we do not consider "respect" when naming Wikipedia articles as doing so would be POV. Secondly, please try that understand that options 2 and 3 would not show any more respect towards Liliuokalani than its location now. If we renamed the article as option 2, we'd be comparing her title to that of a mere prince or noble. If we renamed the article via option 3, we'd be giving her a location similar to that of a Queen consort, not a Queen regnant. This would be even more disrespectful than keeping her at Liliuokalani. Thirdly, I can't see how leaving Liliuokalani at her current location would be disrespectful anyway, since it's identical to option 4, minus the territorial disambiguation.

Thus, I cannot seem to find this "controversy" that you refer to. With the exception of you, Mowens35 (who is absent without leave), and User:Bhinneka (who is also absent without leave--or is (s)he?), all users so far have indicated that they favor option 1, plain and simple.

So, please explain why you favor options 2, 3, and 4 and why you don't want to accept option 1. 青い(Aoi) 18:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I am for leaving the titles the way they are with redirects for the other possible names. Having King/Queen/Princess/Prince X of Hawai'i seems very awkward to me. Also having their Christian names in the title of the section also sounds strange to me. I do not see why we have to adopt the European naming system. --Gmosaki 21:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I support oprion 1; I could accept option 4, but think it unnecessary; it would also require links to be clumsy or piped. The standard for European royalty is "pre-cmptive disambiguation" but no disambiguation is necessary here. Septentrionalis 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

My feeling, as before, is to go with the full name of the person, and omit any salutation or additional words. Victoria Kauilani (I'm sure I've misspelled that) seems sufficient to disambiguate, and the content of the article should explain exactly which title she held. I see no reason to have King Foo Bar, when Foo Bar will suffice. Am I missing some other policy requesting King Foo Bar (or King Foo as the example above, or King Foo of Hawaii, which is completely redundant and silly) be used? Avriette 00:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I also would support option 1 as that is the most common form generally used in Hawai‘i. However, I also could support the option of preceding with the title as that is also very often encountered. Here in the Islands, of course, no one would use "name of Hawaii". I'm unsure why this is a problem, since the article can give details and my second option could be a redirect page (or vice versa). No one is likely to search using "of Hawaii", but Queen Liliuokalani or Princess Kaiulani are real terms that would be encountered here and outside of Hawai‘i. - Marshman 04:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Marshman is right that titles for these monarchs are frequently encountered, and though I still oppose such the use of titles in article titles for reigning monarchs (for the reasons I stated above, though I'd like to note that I'd be willing to support the use of titles in articles about princes and princesses, e.g. "Princess Kaiulani"), I have a large amount of respect in Marshman's opinions due to his contributions to Hawaii-related articles. Does anyone else here support the suggestion put forth by Marshman? If so, we should look into this further. Otherwise, it appears that most people who have posted on this page so far have specifically noted that they're against using titles in the article names. Plus, we could easily create redirects to the current articles. 青い(Aoi) 07:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Also I think that the debate is over and the proposition below for guideline could be adopted into use. In Wikipedia, titles king and queen are not included into the article heading - so if there are no compelling reasons, it's not useful to try it here. Let's leave princesses to a separate talk (there would probably be some opposition as to titling "Princess" Ruth Keelikolani, Princess Bernice Bishop, Prince David Kawananakoa...) as also in general standards, certain other factors affect it. Arrigo 10:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The other proposed forms (which used to be used before) is because having a name simply is just a name. I think for nobles the format [Title+Name] can be used, just like Diana, Princess of Wales. She is not listed as Diana Spencer, even though there was only one Princess Diana as far as I know. Also by just using a name for royals, how is anyone going to be able to differentiate the monarchs between the nobles? Therefore I do not see a problem with using a format of either Title+Name or Name+of+Hawaii. I have been in touch with user Mowens35 who has said that he has no problems with a format "Liliuokalani of Hawaii" either. Gryffindor 10:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

You have some legitimate concerns, however, I'm not sure how many of them are applicable here. While using a single name, for example Liliuokalani, is just a name, it is the name that these monarchs were known by best. Secondly, as I noted before, it follows closer in line with other Wikipedia articles on monarchs. Thirdly, there really wasn't really a "noble" class in Hawaii during the monarchy period, at least not in the European sense of the term. Hawaii had an "ali‘i" class, which was sort of like an aristocracy in a sense. Most of these nobles (if not all) were referred to in English with the title, "(High) Chief(ess) X." We could use titles when referring to these people but that's a completely different discussion. Either way, I doubt there would be any confusion between royals and "nobles" in Hawaii. I'd like to point out that in Europe, there is no confusion between monarchs and aristocracy, and the article titles on European monarchs don't use titles so I'm not quite too sure what you're arguing.

Also, I'm curious as to what Mowens35 is thinking. However, I'm afraid we can't consider his comments here unless he posts his thoughts here himself. Either way, it appears that there's a pretty strong concensus for keeping the status quo (option 1) in these naming conventions so I'm thinking this issue is pretty much closed for the time being. Only one user is against changing the naming convention on Hawaiian monarchs so the current format should be used:

*Use the common "reign name" adopted by each monarch, as these are the names by which the monarchs are best known by. For example, use Kamehameha IV instead of Alexander Liholiho, or Liliuokalani instead of Lydia Lili'u.

*Titles are unnecessary. They aren't used in European monarch's articles, so using them here would be inconsistent. While Hawaii's titles are often referred to using these people, so are European monarchs, but the convention adopted there also omit the title, even though Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is probably better known worldwide as Queen Elizabeth II. However, redirects should be created where necessary.

*The territorial addition, "of Hawaii" is unnecessary; they aren't used in Eastern and Oceanic monarchies (with exception to some Chinese monarchs and all Korean monarchs (because both have good reasons to use them)) and likewise aren't necessary here.

Are these terms okay with everyone? 青い(Aoi) 09:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Mowens35 has given me permission to cite from his emails, I quote: "i don't think many people who aren't interested in these people know who they are in any situation or case ... so jin my mind, arguably the best way to refer to any royal, however well known or obscure, is to always title the articles of reigning monarchs with the name, title, and country, thusly, ie LILIOUKALANI, QUEEN OF HAWA'AI ...ELIZABETH II, QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN ... does that make sense to you as well? i'm happy for you to quote from any of my emails to you ..." Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:01:11 -0400

and another previous email from him said: "I think having a title with a country is fine ...least offensive elucidation ... Lilioukalana of Hawa'ai, that kind of thing ... "

I would concur with Mowens35. If you said that "Queen" is difficult because Hawaiian titles vary, I agree. But that's what she was most known as abroad. But in many other countries we have titles that would not really translate correctly into english, but are used anyways, like Emperor Jimmu, although tenno would not really be emperor either. And Queen Lilioukalani was known in her lifetime as just that, as a Queen of Hawaii. I don't really see an issue with adding a title and/or the country. A redirect would lead to it. Gryffindor 00:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Imo it is useful to define for which class of biographies the rule is intended, i.e "Hawaiian monarchs" - otherwise we soon have people who will apply it to something else, or people who contest (want to change) the policy because they imagine it applies to something else (something which is important to them). The rule should also say that the article itself should conform with standards for Wikipedia biographical articles, as I have seen too many times that some people imagine that a policy on the heading affects all the article. It's on the contrary: if and when the heading is brief, simple etc, the article itself should give all the information, including titles, what was ruled, all the names and a.k.a.s etc. Particularly the introductory paragraph is important. All that is outlined in the Wikipedia guideline for biograhies. Perhaps it would also be good to mention that style or honorific is never in the heading. About the territory, its reason in the rule should also state that there is no necessity to disambiguate on basis of country. Arrigo 23:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] some wording

Formulating a MoS provision: As it seems to me that option 1 receives the overwhelming majority, at least a rough consensus, I already start formulating the resolution:

"Articles of Monarchs of Hawaiian Kingdom have the monarch's Hawaiian reign name as the heading, and the ordinal if necessary for disambiguation. For example, Kamehameha IV, Liliuokalani. The possible christened name is not to be included into the heading, and not any other non-reign name. The titulary (Queen, King) is not used in the heading, nor any style or honorific. The territorial designation ("of Hawaii") is not to be used in the heading since there is no necessity to disambiguate on basis of country. The text of the article follow standards and guidelines for WP biographical articles." 217.140.193.123 22:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First draft

Aloha all - I've put a conceptual first stub draft of the MoS up...I sort of envision it looking somewhat like the AP Stylebook, which shows terms, how they should be spelled, and further explanatory notes on usage and background. Any feedback would be appreciated. Mahalo! --KeithH 10:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of places

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvriette&diff=54565084&oldid=54536489

The user in question feels that we should use "as short a name as possible", whenever possible. That would make Peahi, Hawaii just Peahi. Any comments on this? Please note the other examples listed in the diff, including Kihei and Paia, and so on. ... aa:talk 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)