User talk:VanDoo22

Welcome

Hello, VanDoo22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• You've stated your case at length on the Talk page. Now you should be patient and see if there is consensus to support your position that the article be changed back to the French name. There isn't, at this time: you still appear to be in the minority. However, WP:COMMONNAME does call for the most frequently used name for something to be given priority as an article title. So you should give others a chance to look over the data you have been posting. You might leave a calm, brief message on Skeezix's user talk page asking him if he'd like to look over your Google search data and respond, if you like. There is also WP:WikiProject Canada where you could leave a message on the discussion board, if you like, directing people to this issue. Be keep in mind that tossing around accusations that having an article with the English name is somehow going to cause great "harm" to soldiers will hurt rather than help you, as there are few things less appreciated around here than editors who create unneeded drama. So calm and civil is the way to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Next is be patient. I would actually suggest you stop adding comments to the article talk page, now, per WP:TLDR. And please stop using CAPS in your message: it's the same as shouting. You've got to accept -- I'm not sure you do -- that you just might not get your way on this. Anyway, we'll see. What else? Well, do try leaving a clear message on the WikiProject Canada notice board, if you like. That'll attract some more eyes. Skeezix may just not be interested in replying right now, and in a volunteer project like this, there's no way to force him. So patience and calmness is the way forward... best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Re. "AMENDED Request to look at research on Royal 22e Régiment title"

Hi, thanks for your note on my talk page. I have responded there. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DRAFT POSITION

POSITION - TITLE CHANGE OF ROYAL 22e RÉGIMENT

ISSUE:

This "Talk" contribution suggests that the change, currently under way, to translate into English the article title and unit name of the traditional French-Canadian “Royal 22e Régiment” is not consistent with English Wikipedia policy. The on-going change should revert to the long-standing Wikipedia article title, as well as to the use of the regiment's official name within the text.

WIKIPEDIA POLICY includes 3 sections of particular importance to this issue: (1) when to change existing titles, (2) policy for government organizations, and (3) how to determine names in "common use".

(1) CONSIDERING TITLE CHANGES:

Section 10 of the Policy, (1) Considering titles changes, strongly discourages editing simply to change one controversial title to another, noting that there are many other ways to improve Wikipedia than such unproductive debating. “If an article title has ... not been challenged to a significant degree as well as not moved for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed”. The article on the Royal 22e Régiment reflects these long-standing stable conditions.

The current change being pursued, when it becomes known, could well generate “unproductive debate”. This article, more than most, is a reference on external sites, such as the Facebook pages devoted to the regiment. It is among the first to appear in internet searches on the regiment. Closer to home, a search of En Wikipedia provides more than 100 hits in regard to the regiment. Presently, 92 of these hits, many on pages naming other French-Canadian units, do not use the Anglicised title that is at issue. But as the change in the main article confronts them, there will be a need for resolution. The potential for debate is therefore not exaggerated.

The remainder of this paper deals with the issue of whether there are indeed “good reasons” to change both the article title and the regiment's name, despite the debate likely to flow from it.

(2) GUIDELINES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:

The Guidelines for naming government organizatiions are more restricitve than is Wikipedia policy on common names. They recommend that the official name of an organization be used. When the native title is not in English, it should nevertheless be used “when reliable sources in the English language commonly use the native titles. For example, ... Bundestag (not Parliament of Germany)”. Thus, in establishing titles and naming government organizations, the need is not to demonstrate that one version of a title is more frequently used than an another. The requirement is simply to establish whether reliable sources in the English language commonly use the official native title.This policy is followed in Wikipedia.

(3) COMMON NAMES:

The following data reflects a detailed examination of name usage in accordance with the recommendations of Section 2 on common names in the WP article on titles . This will determine whether the regiment's official "native" title is commonly used by reliable English-language sources. It also contributes to the current Talk debate on what is the most frequent of the commonly used titles.

Search Parameters

The time frame under observation was defined to reflect the 21st Century (from 2000), the last five years and the past year. See notes. The names that were searched are:

• Official title: Royal 22e Régiment.
• Anglicised title: Royal 22nd Regiment.
  
• Nick name: Van Doos (or Vandoos).

Search Results

The following summarizes the result of searches done of various sources suggested by Wikipedia Policy in regard to names.

• Reliable Official Sources. Reliable official sources at all levels, both internationally and nationally, use the official title of the regiment almost exclusively in English communications. The website of the British Monarchy, on its U.K. domain, [1] states: "The Queen (acts) as Colonel-in-Chief of various regiments (including)....Le Royal 22e Régiment ...". Canada's defence department, in an English document,[2] gives the name, history and status of the regiment, confirming its identity as the Royal 22e Régiment in both French and English. In official histories of the Canadian Army in World War II 1, in the Korean War . and to the present day, the regiment is described exclusively according to its official title. A "Google" search of English pages on the Canadian government-wide domain of "gc.ca" showed the current level of use of the Official title at 90% and the Anglicised version at 10%. See Table 1
  

• Reliable Non-Official Sources. Encyclopaedias, Google books and Google News Archive, identified as "reliable sources" by WP, not only use the native French title, but in most examples, it is in distinctly greater use than the Anglicised title. The Canadian Encyclopaedia's main article on the Canadian military described the regiment in depth, using its official “native” title, with no suggestion that it could be Anglicised. (However, other unrelated articles on this encyclopaedia's site produced a somewhat higher number of hits for the Anglicized title). On the other hand, the Wikipedia encyclopaedia, despite the current debate, showed far more hits for the official title than for the Anglicised title. Google Books and Google News Archive similarly showed more frequent use of the official title. See Table 2.

• Search Engines. Search engines, particularly Google, have been cited as showing results of close to 2 million hits for "Royal 22nd Regiment". However, a necessary English-language filter reduces that number to 1 million, and a date-range filter (e.g. all hits from 1920 to present) reduces it to 50,000. Google, Yahoo and Bing searches confirmed that for every time period since 2000, the official native title of "Royal 22e Régiment" is used much more frequently than the Anglicised version. For the past year, the lead in hits of the official "native" title over the Anglicised version is 38% on Google and more than 100% on Yahoo and Bing. See Table 3.
  

• Print and Electronic Media. The name-use practices are far more divergent amongst the English print and electronic media. Canada's two "national" newspapers, the Globe and Mail and the National Post reflect more hits on the Anglicized title, while the newspaper with the largest circulation in Canada, the Toronto Star has significantly greater hits on the official "native" title. Similarly, amongst the electronic media, the CBC and CTV are also at different extremes, the former favouring the official title three times more frequently than the Anglicized version while the latter reflects an astonishing seven-fold preference for the Anglicized version. See Table 4.
  

• Social Media. Youtube and Huffington Post favour the use of the official title over the Anglicized version by a wide margin. On Facebook, despite a significant presence of the regiment, the Anglicized version is almost non-existent. See Table 5.

CONCLUSION

Common use of official title. WP guidelines for naming government organizations that have a non-English "native" title are to use that title, without translation, if reliable English language sources commonly use that native title. There is no need to demonstrate that one version of a title is more frequently used than another - "common use " of the approved foreign-language title of a government agency is sufficient. Since reliable sources ranging from the Queen, through the Canadian bureaucracy to encyclopaedias, books, news archives,and the various types of media, do indeed "commonly use the official native title", one must conclude that the article title and the designation of the Royal 22e Régiment in Wikipedia should remain unchanged. The current process of changing to an Anglicised version should be reversed.

Frequency of use. However, since much of the Talk Page discussion assumed that the key to the selection of names was to have the greatest frequency (despite the previous paragraph), the data from this examination of title use is provided. The official sources use the French title almost exclusively - there is but 10% that erroneously (from a government perspective) use the Anglicised version. Similarly, non-official "reliable sources", as well as search engines and social media produce data showing the official "native" title being used more frequently than the Anglicised version since the turn of the Century. It is only amongst the print and electronic media that there is a diversity of approaches that allows some media to favour the official title while others use the Anglicised version. Therefore, even if the most frequently used name of the regiment were to determine the title of the Wikipedia article, the data would still suggest that the long-standing name of Royal 22e Régiment be retained.

No Need to Consider Title Change. In short, this data shows that the long-standing use of the official title by Wikipedia is fully consistent with Wikipedia Policy in regard to government agencies, and also reflects the most frequent use amongst the many sources suggested for examination. An examination of amendments to the Article over the years does not show significant controversy over the regiment's French-language title. There is, therefore, no obvious "need" that would drive consideration of a change in the Wikipedia article's title and the Anglicisation of the regiment's name. WP suggests that such change should therefore not be considered.

Final Observations.

• Conideration of the name change of the Royal 22e Régiment is/was not supported by WP.
  
• If such an assessment is to be made nevertheless, the key criterion is whether the native official title has common use among English-language reliable sources. It does, and should therefore be maintained as the title.
• If editors insist on using the title in greatest use, the existing official name of Royal 22e Régiment would be selected, nevertheless, as a result.
  

.
. For the consideration of all. Thank You. . .

TABLES

TABLE 1 - GOVERNMENT AND PARA-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

Time Period	Anglicised Title	Official Title (R22eR)	Nick Name (Van Doos)
From 2000	120	672	Not counted
Past 5 years	90	611	Not counted
Past year	35	320	Not counted

TABLE 2 - RELIABLE NON OFFICIAL SOURCES

Source	Anglicised Title (R22ndR)	Official Title (R22eR)	Nick Name (Van Doos)	TOTAL non-Anglicised	Comments
Canadian Encyclopedia through Google domain filter	34	25	2	27	Main article uses official title or nick name exclusively. Hits of anglicised titles mostly 1920s history or separate articles on individuals who mention the regiment in a "bio." Quantitatively, Anglicised version is more frequent, but the keystone article favours the official version.
Wikipedia internal search (articles only)	14	62	30	92	Large number of hits undoubtedly reflects the dynamic up-to-date nature of Wikipedia and better coverage of military matters.
Google Books From 2000	346	604	488	1,092	”Anytime search” also shows official title in greater use than Anglicized version (22,770 vice 21,700),
Google News Archive From 2000	551	698	130	823

TABLE 3 - SEARCH ENGINES

Source	Anglicised Title (R22ndR)	Official Title (R22eR)	Nick Name (Van Doos)	TOTAL non-Anglicised	Comments
GOOGLE Search Engine					GOOGLE searches unlimited by language, dates, etc., give results of 1.7 million hits for "Royal 22nd Regiment", an unusable result, created by 97 years of documented history and decades of incomplete Google scanning and indexing. More accurately filtered parameters were required, starting in the present century, shown below.
From 2000	39,800	45,800	33,380	79,180
From 2006	37,000	44,400	23,613	68,813
Past year	14,400	19,777	14,250	34,027
YAHOO Search Engine	-	-		-	YAHOO does not provide the same search filters as Google that allow time periods of several years to be quantified. Therefore fixed points were selected – years 2000, 2006 and the past year. Because the Anglicised title was so clearly a “non-solution” in this search, the nick name was not quantified.
2000	4,120	9,630	NO count	9,630
2006	4,110	8,480	NO count	8,480
Past year	5,910	12,300	NO count	12,300
BING Search Engine	-	-		-	As with Yahoo above, BING does not provide the same search filters as Google that allows time periods of several years to be quantified. Therefore fixed points were selected – years 2000, 2006 and the past year.
2000	5,890	16,498	NO count	16,498
2006	5,940	13,779	NO count	13,779
Past year	9,660	22,561	NO count	22,561

|- |- |-

TABLE 4 - PRINT & ELECTRONIC MEDIA

Source	Anglicised Title (R22ndR)	Official Title (R22eR)	Nick Name (Van Doos)	TOTAL non-Anglicised	Comments
Globe and Mail From 2000	32	12	9	21	G&M internal index used for search. Presents itself as Canada's "national newspaper". Has rigid and unusual rules in regard to titles that diminish its reliability as an indicator of language use.
Past year	21	8	7	15
National Post From 2000(using filtered Google	31	20	23	43	Another "national" newspaper.
Past year	25	17	13	30
Toronto Star From 2000(using filtered Google	59	49	40	89	Star has Canada's highest circulation, concentrated mainly in Ontario.
Past year	15	38	14	52	In the last decade, the official title was slightly behind the Anglicised version, but in the past year it showed the greater use.
CTV From 2000(using filtered Google	862	37	36	73
Past year	228	32	20	52	An aberration. Either the data is wrong or CTV is completely different from most other sources.
CBC From 2000(using filtered Google	868	10,696	49	10,745
Past year	312	903	23	926	The native official title is used almost three times more frequently than the Anglicised version.

|-

TABLE 5 - SOCIAL MEDIA

Source	Anglicised Title (R22ndR)	Official Title (R22eR)	Nick Name (Van Doos)	TOTAL non-Anglicised	Comments
FACEBOOK “Anytime” (using filtered Google) From 2000	18	3,080	73	3,153	FACEBOOK’s data is all sufficiently recent that no separation is either necessary or possible.
YOUTUBE “Anytime” (using filtered Google) From 2000	109	574	519	1093	YOUTUBE’S data is all sufficiently recent that no separation is either necessary or possible.
HUFFINGTON POST From 2000	43	52	205	257

Response

Briefly scanning your results above I'd say you have little change of convincing anyone to change the name to the French version. Take a look at Table 4: The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post and CTV all, according to your own research, use the English name more than the French. That's more than enough to satisfy the Wikipedia guideline that the English be in common usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)