Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Korolyov (city)

I've made a move request at Talk:Korolyov (city), because I feel this should be an exception to WP:RUS; it is named after Sergei Korolev (for which I've also made a move request, which appears unopposed), so I think it should be called Korolev (city); comments on the talk page would be welcome. Thanks! :) Mlm42 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Video game series articles

I have made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) because it seems to go against our general article naming guidelines. Specifically, the practice of moving series articles to the name of the first game, and renaming that game XXX (video game)(like moving Mass Effect (series) to Mass Effect, and Mass Effect to Mass Effect (video game)). It is my feeling that since a series is almost never referred to in reliable sources without a qualifier (series, franchise, universe, history of, etc.), a move like this is never accurate, and we just end up with two articles at the wrong title. If you are so inclined, please comment at the above-mentioned talk page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Desperate need to include more examples in the policy

Parts of it are like a maze: there's a discussion now here as to whether to italicise the titles of opera articles. People just don't know the answers. At WP:TITLE, I find it hard to make my way through Wikipedia:ITALICS#Italic_face (referred to from here); "Do not enclose titles in quotes" (what about the name of an aria within an opera?); this—"Use italics when italics would be used in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles", and the fact that many many article titles do not observe this. I'm confused.

What about a carefully chosen set of brief examples woven into the text, so editors can understand? Tony (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, is this correct? Australian_Idol_(season_7). Tony (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point about the examples; now practice re italicization seems to have settled down, perhaps we should add some. I believe Australian Idol (season 7) is the right form for that title (as we follow the same italicization principles as we would in running text).--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Pity italics looks so crappy in the article-title format. Tony (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

At Talk:Nirmala_Srivastava#2011_proposed_rename_of_article there has been protracted circular discussion over whether the use of Indian-language honorifics is justified by wp:COMMONNAME. Additional perspectives would be helpful. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Daughter-in-law elect?

It seems, according to some people, that this policy delegates all matters of the punctuation of those names to guidelines at WP:MOS (see the "See also" section at the end of WP:TITLE). News to me; the See Also link links only to one section of MOS, which has only an - incomplete and inaccurate - summary of our section on special characters.

Did someone intend such a claim by making the link? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

AstroHall history

The Astrohall was built at about the same time as the Astrodome, by a developer/investor (name in unknown) as a Dental Industry Display and Meeting Center. The 250,000 square feet included small permanant display areas, office space and 100,000 sq ft of open exhibit hall.

The intended use never ocurred and the building remained essentially empty until purchased by an Houston investor, Candace Mosler. After another year or so, Ms, Mosler realized that her business manager was unable to locate tenants and she retained my company, Edward Bankers & Associates, to manage and lease the building.

We were able to lease the larger display areas to various engineering firms when they quickly required large space on short term rentals.

Longer term occupancy was initiated by a division of Shell Oil Co., which eventually leased the entire building, creating a "state of the art" computer center in the exhibit hall area. Shell eventually built a new building and vacated this building. By that time I had sold the management company and I have no knowledge of subsequent activities.

Several references in the Wikipedia article give the impression that there were a number of sports and other venues held in this building. Design, especially ceiling heights would have precluded such use.

98.199.217.84 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

pi → π?

The move is being proposed at Talk:Pi#Requested_move. The issues are to some extent unique, so it might be of interest here. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The italics issue (article titles)

The 'italics issue' (the italicization of words in article titles), which was the subject of an Rfc here last year, is being reviewed at the Village pump (policy). (There have also been some discussions at the Music project and Classical music project). It is likely that there will be a new Rfc aimed at establishing a much wider consensus.--Kleinzach 07:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming wars: the only way out

This new subsection at Talk:Mexican-American War presents ten summary points for a protracted dispute. Recommended reading: for editors interested in the ways style guidelines at WP:MOS and policy here at WP:TITLE are received at talkpages of articles, and for admins who might be looking to close the two relevant contested requests for move (RMs).

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This policy would take precedence over the MOS regarding debates over hyphens vs. dashes (since this is policy and that is "just a guideline". Our primary policy statement is to follow common usage as indicated by the sources. If the sources indicate that something should be spelled with a dash (or a hyphen, or a tilde, or some other bit of punctuation) then that is what we should do in our article title. If this can not be determined, then go with project or even local level consensus as to which is best. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The question is whether TITLE was intended to cover matters of formatting and style. If our sources use title case, do our articles need to as well? (We have a whole list of exceptions here.) I would like to see that point addressed here: Is the MOS invalidated by TITLE? and if we should use the same form in the title and in the text, is the MOS invalidated in the text as well? — kwami (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, exactly. Blueboar, you can't have it both ways. Let's create chaos among WP article names by removing any mention of title vs sentence case: we should fight it out (war after war) in terms of what people's pet "sources" do. Who is going to put the motion? Tony (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If and when the MOS and TITLE conflict, then the MOS needs to change. MOS is a guideline while TITLE is policy. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If they conflict. That's my question. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that in most cases "common usage" refers to the words, to either the name used by that article or the other alternative names at the end of the lead. For the question on whenver a name is the most common or not, "Mexican American war", "Mexican-American war", "Mexican–American war", "Mexican/American war" or whatever are all the same name. Which style to use, is a question that each source would answer using their own style choice, and so should do us MBelgrano (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the first one "Mexican American war" would imply something different (a war among Mexicans that are now American); some type of dash is necessary to indicate a two-sided aspect to it. But yea, to the average reader, they could likely care less on the exact punctuation as long as they got to this page when searching for it and it explained what the war was in legible English. The edit-warring and discussion on being exact about the "proper" punctuation is wasting a lot of hours with minimal benefit to the work. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Masem, you're right that it's wasting a lot of time, but a lot of editors are keen that Mr Anderson's continuing war against the style guides not succeed, since it will cause chaos on many article talk pages, not just this one. There is a much wider issue at stake here. I again ask why we don't trash the style guide's rule about sentence case in section headings, since most sources use title case. Tony (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Apples to oranges. Section titles are generic aspects of articles, and thus I expect our MOS to provide consistent advice for it. "Mexican-American" is a term of the art specific for historians, and in such cases we should review the sources to determine how best to present it. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Our policy is quite simple really... When it comes to choosing a title, we follow the sources - even if that goes against the MOS. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't buy Masem's elitist argument about art and ownership by historians. I wouldn't trust historians with a barge-pole in matters of language: if they trusted themselves, I'd be out of a job, since they wouldn't hire me to get it right for them. And while we're on this policy vs style-guide thing, which Blueboar seems to attached himself to: WP:TITLE explicitly says not to change a title from one controversial form to another. WP:TITLE says nothing about preferring hyphens to dashes in titles. It does, indeed, defer to MoS in several respects. Have you read it? Tony (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • MOS, like every other policy and guideline on WP (save for BLP and NFC) have only the strength of consensus backing them. MOS conformity is not a strict rule system (WP has no rules), though clearly consensus agrees that general principles on article layout and construction be used for consistency. But every fine detail cannot be prescribed by the MOS and at the end of the day, if consensus agrees that a "violation" of the MOS is a better presentation of the text than the MOS gives, then so be it. The MOS needs to be envisioned as an ideal approach but with common sense exceptions, just like any guideline on WP is treated. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
His opinion doesn't really conflict. MBelgrano says this is a matter of style, not of naming, and thus under the purview of the MOS rather than TITLE. Masem says we should have a title consistent with our sources, but both formats are consistent: historians variously use Mexican American War, Mexican-American War, Mexican–American War. Since the first two are mildly ambiguous and the last fits our MOS, the last is the best choice: It's supported both by academic sources and by the MOS. — kwami (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Except that consensus from the discussions I've seen, though arguing both the dashed formers are used, believe that more sources end up on the first one, and thus, by their discussion, favor the ndash over the mdash form. Let me take the exaggerated case: say that editors trying to resolve a title find 100 sources: 99 of them favor form A, one favors form B, and B happens to be the form that our MOS suggests is appropriate. This would be a clearcut case that if the editors agree with following the sources that deviating from the MOS makes sense. Now, if the same situation but 50 sources supported A, and the other 50 supported B, likely consensus would agree with staying consistent with the MOS solution. Everything in between is going to be a matter of consensus and sources. I don't know exactly where the Mexican-American war falls in terms of sources, but again, the ultimate decider is going to be consensus, taking into account what the MOS says. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Disjunctive en dash is minority usage. But that's true everywhere except for numbers. It's a stylistic choice adopted for greater precision. But I don't think we should be inconsistent just because we use different sources for different articles. For example, sources on a topic might use roman numerals for dates, but that doesn't mean we need to use roman numerals for dates in that article. For another, we might find that the majority of sources hyphenate "Mexican-Americans" but the majority (of different sources) space "Asian Americans". Do we want to therefore hyphenate one and not the other? Do we want a hyphenation debate over every single X-American article? Better IMO to simply choose one style for the encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
To be really fair, you ought to compare with "Asian-American war" or with "Asian-American noun", when the noun is not a person. Otherwise, you are comparing apples with oranges. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: is there a real dispute in the sources about this? Are there any authors out there that specifically claim aloud to use hyphen, tilde or whatever, specifically opposing the other options? Does any author consider "Mexican-American war" a legitimate name and "Mexican–American war" a faulty one? (or the other way) Because if it is a non-existent dispute, then there is no dispute. Verifiability does not go as far as requiring us to use the same style rules than our sources, we should manage the topics of style with our own set of rules of style (the MOS, and I'm saying "rules" in a broad way) MBelgrano (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no dispute in the lit. This is purely stylistic, not a naming dispute. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I regret to see that Kwami is inventing his facts; he is also inventing policy.
  • Searching for Mexican American War turns up a large number of well-printed books. It is very difficult to find any where the book does not use a hyphen; Google's OCR occasionally fumbles.
  • Looking through a selection of style guides (I started with the ones at WP:MOS#Further reading) will show that the only ones to endorse this use of a dash are Oxford English. This is doubly doubtful for this article, which should be in American; Oxford University Press does not consistently comply with its own style guide.
  • MOS also does not support what Kwami prefers; WP:HYPHEN 3 says that compound adjectives are hyphenated.
Kwami and Tony have been forum-shopping for the rule they made up all over Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
But the wording of WP:ENGLISH you cite also represents a minority opinion that has been maintained there by edit warring - the majority (and actual practice) come down very much on the side of using modified letters even in cases where a numerical majority of English-language sources don't use them.--Kotniski (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No, they represent a majority opinion which generally prevails over all but the most extreme nationalism; they are a simple application of The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, which you wrote, IIRC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
In recent discussions on, say, François Mitterrand, it was shown conclusively that (a) most English sources don't use the cedilla; (b) most editors (and they are not generally speaking "nationalists" in any shape or form) prefer that Wikipedia use the cedilla. Other discussions have given similar results. So the view that we have to slavishly follow whatever style happens to be used by a majority of English sources (or even "reliable" English sources) is rather a minority one, and certainly not consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Not what I see. The argument seems to be rather that a majority of the actual sources do use François; Google's OCR problems miscount the hits. Neither claim is surprising. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have referred readers to the articles on en dash and em dash, instead of WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH. The recent wave of undiscussed changes by Tony, Noetica, and Kwami is mostly their pique that the recent discussion over Mexican-American War preferred this policy over the guidelines at WP:MOS. However, it also revealed that they disagree with the rest of us (CWenger, Headbomb, Wareh, Hans Adler, and so on) as to what WP:DASH says. It seems undesirable to incorporate so ill-constructed a guideline into policy, no matter how much three dedicated editors want to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Accent-like characters

Accent-like and quote-like characters (e.g. ʻ, ʾ, ʿ, ᾿, ῾, ‘, “, ’, ”, c, combining diacritical marks with a "space" character) should be avoided in page names.

Come to think of it, why? There is a case for saying these are never natural; but if so, we don't need this; it's already said. There is a case for ruling out quotes, so that articles on short stories aren't under "The Cask of Amontillado"; but this doesn't mention true quote marks at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy and tsunami

  • The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more typical, but less accurate tidal wave.

Tsunami is no more accurate than tidal wave.. In Japanese tsunami means "harbor wave", but obviously tsunami are not limited to harbors. This is a bit pedantic, but encyclopedias are supposed to be pedantic, right? Can we find a more accurate example of a more accurate name? Further, tsunami is replacing tidal wave, so the assertion that the latter is more common is probably no longer true.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's pretty clear to everyone now that "tsunami" is the common name anyway; and given what you say about the original meaning of tsunami, that makes it a totally inappropriate example all round. I've commented it out - can we think of a genuine example of the phenomenon that it was supposed to be illustrating (that we have a certain tendency to avoid titles that would be tinged with inaccuracy)? I've suggested William IV of the United Kingdom in the past ("William IV of England" is more common, but seen to be less correct) - can anyone think of a better one?--Kotniski (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Tsunami doesn't mean "harbor wave" in English, which is the only thing that's relevant. Tidal wave implies wrongly that it has something to do with the tides, like a tidal bore (a true tidal wave). — kwami (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If one lives on the east coast of England particularly on the Thames estuary, it is tidal waves caused by tidal and storm surges that are potentially a major problem and are the leading edge of a much longer lasting surge of water than occurs in a Tsunami. The effects of such storm and tidal surges also felt in other countries that border the North Sea particularly the Netherlands (See Storm tides of the North Sea). A major difference is that unlike a Tsunami triggered by a local quake there is usually about a 12 hour warning of the problem. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlike other big waves caused by typhoon or bad weather, tsunami does not damage ships off shore, but damages harbors and land. That is why it's called harbor wave. You know, the wave gets more devastating when it comes in gulfs, bays, coves, and harbors. It's an accurate word to Japanese people. Watch this 5km offshore tsunami video shot by the Japan Coast Guard on March 11. [1] Oda Mari (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The point is, "Tsunami" is no longer uncommon, and so is a bad example of what we are trying to say. Not sure I like the idea of using a nobility name as the example (the titles for royalty/nobility articles are often contentious)... I would prefer something more obvious, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
How about Coccinellidae, instead of ladybug (or ladybird)? Mlm42 (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Other examples could be found in the article Misnomer. Mlm42 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The use of Coccinellidae is not defensible on this ground; it is no more accurate than Ladybug. The only jusrification for the obseure scientic name is that it evades the Anglo-American dispute (and I'm not sure that's enough). A bad example; there may be no good ones, in which case the paragraph should be removed; it's another atab at "follow reliable sources", which didn't wuite make it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
(Some would argue that Ladybugs are neither ladies, nor bugs, but anyway..) How about Meteoroid (or Meteor) instead of shooting star? I think "Shooting star" is the common name, but it could be misleading because they aren't stars. Or maybe Ulnar nerve instead of the more common funny bone (which isn't a bone). Mlm42 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the mention of dashes in the section Special Characters, to restore neutrality with respect to the en dash. (See recent discussion above, and at several other pages.) This is the non-prejudicial version that I have put in place:

  • Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters: If the use of diacritics (accent marks) is in accordance with the English-language name, or other characters not present on most standard keyboards are used, provide a redirect from the equivalent title using standard English-language keyboard characters. In particular, provide a redirect from the equivalent hyphenated form to any title using an en dash (for guidelines see WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN, at WP:MOS); even though many keyboards have dashes, many don't.

(This may well have been altered by another editor as I write.)

I call for comment on this. Wikipedia can only benefit from links to central, highly relevant guidelines from policies. Punctuation is addressed thoroughly for the Project at WP:MOS; so where policy touches on punctuation, link to that resource. The guidelines WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN at WP:MOS are long-established, stable, and subjected to close scrutiny at the relevant talkpage (WT:MOS). If it is alleged that they include anything inadequate or unfounded, the place to address that is WT:MOS.

It is also unhelpful to prejudice the issue (for a wider political purpose) by repeated asseverations concerning WP:COMMONNAME. Of course it applies; it's there at the top of the page. Including special mention of what is "customary" for the en dash in the section on special characters was never discussed here, as far as I can tell. Usage of the en dash is amply covered at WP:DASH, and does not need supplementing by undiscussed and agenda-driven mention here.

Our policies and our guidelines need to be in harmony. If it is alleged that they are not, let that matter be discussed here also.

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, WP:ENDASH is disputed, and protected. One reason for this is that Noetica and the two other revisers here disagree with a majority on what it actually means. There have been two move requests on this subject at Talk:Mexican-American War; their view has not been upheld by either; the response has ranged from accusations of admin corruption to this assault on the present policy.
In general policies should not defer to guidelines; least of all should they do so when the guideline is disputed and unclear. In this case, Noetica's novel wording would do so by displacing recognizability and naturalness, two consensus goods.
When guidelines disagree with policies, the general solution is to change the guideline. That's why we have two levels. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I really would prefer not to personalise this, but in reply to PMAnderson's personalising points (even in the articlepolicy page here, after his latest editing!) it is unavoidable:
  • If WP:ENDASH is disputed (which is itself debatable), it is disputed by PMAnderson more than anyone else. I have invited him to open a general discussion of that guideline more than once, but he does not do so. He has preferred to raise the issue at specific talkpages for articles in discussion of requested moves (RMs). That has been a chaotic and time-wasting way to deal with guidelines for our millions of articles.
  • If WP:ENDASH is protected, that is only because all of WP:MOS is protected – for reasons that have nothing to do with WP:ENDASH. PMAnderson was party to the disruption that brought that protection on, about six weeks ago. Subsequently he was blocked for a week, and has done nothing towards resolving that initial dispute since returning.
  • No one is suggesting that policies should "defer to guidelines". We might as well say they should not "defer" to WP articles, like Dash. But that is what PMAnderson prefers to link to, rather than to our own central and consensual guidelines. His dissenting does not undo the consensus long enjoyed by WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN.
  • The view that policy and guidelines conflict is unsupported. Let the details be discussed, as I have suggested above.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary;
  • a majority dispute Noetica's interpretation of WP:DASH: Headbomb, Wareh, Hans Adler, Enric Naval...
  • The claim that I have not discussed at WT:MOS is inconsistent with the claim I have opposed it; it is also inconsistent with my edit history (how many edits have I made there in the last week?)
  • In xer last post, Noetica claimed that we need "harmony between policies and guidelines," and that justifies xer innovation on this page; now xe claims that there is no support for the view that "policies and guidelines conflict." Unless they conflict, why does policy need to be changed?
  • I have invited him to open a general discussion of that guideline more than once Sheer invention; show diffs, if you can.
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary:
  • PMAnderson has posted in a vague scattershot way on the issue at WT:MOS, and at several irrelevant locations. Development of guidelines needs to be systematic and centralised, with sound motivation and an open mind.
  • Mine is no innovation here. It simply counters this partisan and devious innovation (I'm sorry to have to say) by PMAnderson. That innovation was never discussed, as far I can see.
  • For my invitations to move discussion to a central location, see my consistent plea for that (and for orderly, conciliatory compromise!) at Talk:Mexican-American War, of all remote outposts for the development of core punctuation guidelines. See also the ongoing RM saga at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War. That should be enough evidence of my calling for centralised, well-advertised, and systematic discussion, for a start.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 03:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this particular disputed started in this Jan. 27 diff where PMAnderson added text to say "such characters should only be used when they are customarily used for the subject in reliable English secondary sources", with respect to non-keyboard characters. Sounds innocent, but since since he's trying to change policy to support his campaign to stamp out en dashes, we should really examine that campaign on its merits, in an appropriate forum. As it stands, he says our MOS is contemptible. I think it's fine as it is. Furthermore, the particular terms he's talking about, Mexican–American War, is not hard to find in good English sources with the en dash; but he seems to want it to be be a vote instead of a logical choice based on a usage guide. I think we're better off leaving it in the form that has worked for a long time. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson, see the guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, which covers my post to User:Dicklyon. He is a fellow expert on these things; surely he appreciated my notifying him of the discussion here. He was also involved in related matters, as you well know. I am glad to see you supporting a guideline. We could quibble over its details. My suggestion? Let's not. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
In other words, he shares Noetica's preferences; Noetica therefore feels entitled to leave him messages requesting him to post here against "creeping disruption". Noted.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
My general suggestion a moment ago was "let's not". It still is. But especially, do not misrepresent me. As anyone can read, I made no request that he post here. I'm a little surprised that he did, because he's busy writing a book. I'm busy too. Please stop your creeping disruption of the policy discussion here. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


I agree with PMA on this issue: follow the usage in reliable sources. At a practical level it is far better that pages that need a hyphen or dash are always created with a hyphen, because given the limitation of English keyboards that is what the majority of people will search on. Then create a redirect with en dash or make a bold move to an en dash versions (those moves that are controversial will be reverted and a WP:RM can be used to decide the issue based on this policy and its guidelines). My thinking here is fail safe. If a page is created with an en dash, a version with a hyphen may not be created, in which case the page may not be found using a standard keyboard search.
What is done in the MOS is not directly relevant to this policy as the MOS is a content guideline and should not be used to justify article titles contrary to this policy. -- PBS (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Philip, those are worthwhile considerations. But note:
  • MOS is a guideline for articles, and that includes the styling of their titles where that styling does not conflict with WP:TITLE. There is no suggestion from any of us MOS specialists to change that. In fact, I introduced this section with "harmony with MOS" at the head.
  • Surely we think the forms chosen for the title and for the body of the article must match, right? It is then unwieldy and unworkable to have policy governing one decision entirely, and a set of guidelines the other decision. It cannot be that a spurious technical difficulty arising just for titles settles the forms used within articles.
  • Making hyphen-equivalent titles for redirects is easy; there are editors already dedicated to such work, and it is an ideal activity for bots. Trivial, compared to many bot tasks.
  • In all sorts of cases it will be uncontroversial to "follow the sources" and have an en dash (Lilliput–Brobdingnag rail services must have an en dash, all agree). So any difficulty working with en dashes must arise anyway. But as I say: it would never be a practical difficulty. It's en dash, remember: not "♠".
  • If we strove explicitly always to follow every detail in reliable sources, including punctuation in all of its minute specification, there would be chaos. No publisher ever does that. First, which are reliable sources? And if they conflict (as they usually will) on exact styling of punctuation? And if they are internally inconsistent (as is extremely common)? Every question of precise styling must be thrashed out minutely at thousands of related pages, with no central principle to shorten the inevitable churning of opinion. MOS is designed to help, with centralised consensual guidelines; and it fulfils that task very well in all but a few cases. And of course when militant partisan ideology rears its head.
  • It must be stressed once more: if the MOS guidelines are imperfect, we want to hear about it. We want to work out an optimal, workable solution together. That's why we have WT:MOS.
  • There has been a genuine tension on this present issue. It has not helped that people dig their heels in. The usefulness of the Project is paramount. I for one would accept it, if policy determined that en dashes were utterly banned from article titles, by consensus. But then, that would not meet standards of best practice anywhere else; and the forms within articles would inexplicably differ from forms in titles. Not useful to the reader; seriously misleading. And a decidedly shoddy look for Wikipedia.
  • The policy (as I show it above) is now very certain, with a harmonious and understandable connection to closely relevant guidelines. It is restored, to be unencumbered by recent manipulations. It represents a perfectly natural relation between policy and guidelines. We would need a compelling reason to upset it and to forfeit the obvious benefits such harmony and certainty can bring. We have not seen a compelling reason.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 09:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
A quibble about: "Surely we think the forms chosen for the title and for the body of the article must match, right?" - Not necessarily. A good example... in the TITLE we don't use abbreviations (example: Saint James vs St. James)... but that is not the case in the text. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, there are many cases where we don't match the title. However, it is a common argument that we should, so it can be problematic. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note that Noetica is now in violation of WP:AN3, having introduced WP:MOS to this policy four times in 24 hours, three of them before beginning this discussion. If this is not removed, I will consider what other measures are appropriate to end this non-consensus addition by a faction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Anderson's edit war was 5RR, so any block should of course apply to him as well, or maybe only to him. One of his edits was also WP:POINTy,[2] which on a policy page is in itself a blockable offense. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • STOP... there is enough "blame" on all sides to go around. It does not matter who is edit warring more than who... or who started it. Both sides on this issue are being pointy, and both sides are edit warring. Knock it off. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Stop Edit Warring

I am tired of the edit warring over the hyphen/dash issue. Given that there are ongoing and still heated debates in several locations (here, WP:MOS, WP:ENDASH etc.) it is clear to me that we don't have a clear consensus on the issue (despite the fact that both sides of the debate are claiming there is one). I have therefore taken the BOLD step of removing all mention of the issue from this policy until the debates are settled. It is better to say nothing on the issue that to have it contently change back and forth. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh very well. This removes the suggestion that pages titled with dashes have redirects from the typeable form with hyphens; but that may not be consensus either, since Noetica objects in the (rare) case that titles use the long em dashes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
NOTE... my removal is intended to be TEMPORARY... it is not intended as support for either side in this debate. The debate over this issue is now infecting multiple policy and guideline pages. That has to stop. You need to centralize the debate. Since it does impact multiple pages, I think the best place for that discussion is the Village Pump policy page. I would suggest that you and Noetica jointly draft a summary of the debate (so that those of us who are not familiar with it will understand what the debate is about) and post it there. Each of you need to state your case as best you can, and then step back and let the wider community decide. Either that or take it through Dispute Resolution. But stop edit warring over it. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the note about redirecting from hyphens actually is long-standing consensus, but it's also implied by the existing text and is just common sense, so we don't necessarily need it. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a note about redirecting hyphens has been in the policy for a long time (the specific wording has changed a few times, but the over all intent has been consistent)... However, that long standing language has now been challenged. Because of that challenge, what we need to determine is whether there is still consensus for the long standing language.
We all know that consensus can change... so appeals to long-standing consensus need to be supported by evidence that what was once consensus still is consensus (and it works the other way as well... claims that consensus has changed also need evidence to support them). So the first question that we need to determine is this: has consensus changed on this issue or not? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus version

Actually, I was wrong about PMAnderson starting the current thrashing here. His edit was actually a reaction to this diff in which Tony1 changed the long-standing consensus version:

  • Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters: If use of diacritics (accent marks) is in accordance with the English-language name, or other characters not present on standard keyboards are used, such as dashes, provide a redirect from the equivalent title using standard English-language keyboard characters.

to try to clarify that dashes are not necessarily not present on standard keyboards; I think that point is pointless, since it brings up the issue of whether a character is "present" if you have to know what to type with the "option" key to get it. In spite of Noetica's attempt in making the neutral version that has now been put back in as "policy", I think it would be better to go back to the long-standing consensus version. I don't think anyone really objects to it, they want to warp it in various ways, and this is not the place for that until we decide on a direction. If any clarification is needed, I think it would be that we mean "ASCII" keyboard characters, as opposed to "English-language", since many standard English-keyboard characters like hyphens and apostrophes and dashes such don't have much to do with English language. It really does mean ASCII, doesn't it? Or is there some other relevant standard that I'm not aware of? Or maybe it meant English-keyboard characters, or English-language–keyboard characters, as opposed to English-language keyboard characters? Wouldn't it be nice if we could be clear on what we mean? Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The only problems with that text are verbal; this policy tries not to call our titles "names", because that leads to the "we must use Our Version; it's the subject's name" argument, which produces interminable ethnic disputes.
We mean characters on virtually all standard (anglophone) keyboards; this is not ASCII, although it is fairly close to "printable ASCII"; we don't want to include bells and deletes in these "typewriter redirects." Many readers can't get dashes with option keys either; we should not assume everybody has a Mac because some of us do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, the original version (quoted by Dicklyon above) makes this debate much clearer in my mind... It has nothing to do with the MOS. What underlies the policy statement is the concept of "searchability". When an article Title uses a character that our readers might not have on their keyboards, it makes it difficult for readers to search for and find the article. It is OK for the Title to contain such characters, but to aid searching we advise editors to provide a redirect that uses characters that readers will have on their keyboards.
Since (apparently) not all keyboards have dashes, we tell editors to provide a redirect that uses a similar character (one that is on their keyboard) ... which happens to be a hyphen. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
ASCII is not really appropriate because UK keyboards have a £ symbol instead of a # above the number 3 (see British and American keyboards) coupled to that difference in the days when UK printers only printed the ASCII character set there was usually a surface mounted block switch used to print a £ sign instead of a # sign (and to toggle changes for other county's settings). In other words the ASCII symbol was modified for the British market, but the internal value was still 0x23. In the UK almost no one would call the "#" symbol a pound sign they would call it a "hash" and apart from for telephone menus (and computing programming usage) it is almost never used (Number sign). Most English language computer keyboards do not have a en-dash key (they have hyphen and underscore). -- PBS (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new language, based upon long-standing language

  • Provide redirects if the article title contains non-standard keyboard characters: Sometimes the most appropriate Article title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other typographical characters not found on many standard keyboards. Such titles are (with limitations) acceptable. However, because the characters are not found on standard keyboards, they can make it difficult for readers to search for and find the article. In such cases, editors are asked to formulate redirects using appropriate standard English-language keyboard characters.

We can play with the exact wording, but I think this better explains the issue. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. Slightly tweaking it: "Provide redirects if the article title contains non-standard keyboard characters. Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other typographical characters not found on standard English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult for readers to search for and find the article. In such cases, please provide a redirect from a version of the title that uses only standard keyboard characters." SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
SV tweak is fine with me. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me; the major difference from Blueboar's is the "limitations" Blueboar mentions, and they're in the previous bullet point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems good, though maybe a little wordy. Also, "ASCII" is just fine: non-printing characters cannot be used in a title anyway, so they're irrelevant. Same with #: in the previous paragraph we inform the reader that # cannot be used in titles, so it doesn't matter if it isn't found on UK keyboards. (Actually, I think it is, just not in the same place.) The ASCII characters not restricted from titles altogether are 0-9, a-z, A-Z, space/underscore, and !"$%&'()*+,-./:;=?@\^`~. All are available on UK and US keyboards. If we link ASCII, we won't have to then define what we mean by "standard keyboard". I'd tweak it to:
Provide all-ASCII redirects to articles with non-ASCII characters in their titles. Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other typographical characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to search for the article directly.
— kwami (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I think fewer people will be confused by "non-Standard keyboard characters" than would be by "ASCII characters". Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This proposal is precise, but far from accurate; at a minimum, it would need to be amended to "printable ASCII character"; we do not want all 128 of them. And leaving #, and [, and ], to be excluded by implication, when they are indubitably part of ASCII, is bad writing. If we need a definition (we never have), we can link from "standard keyboard" to British and American keyboards. Unless some Commonwealth country lacks a symbol found on all those layouts, that will cover the matter, and lead to the same set Kwami intends ASCII to suggest. (This line leads to mentioning that [] can't occur in article titles in this paragraph, but I don't insist on it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by that objection. Can you give me an example of a page title with a non-printable ASCII character that we would need a redirect for? — kwami (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
But I agree with search for articles directly, and suspect Kwami is right to omit SV's last sentence; telling them what you told them has merits but may not be necessary here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I therefore propose a merge of the last two versions:

Redirects and characters not on a standard keyboard. Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other typographical characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to search for the article directly. In such cases, please provide a redirect [redirects] from a version [versions] of the title that uses only standard keyboard characters."

This removes the redundancy in a different way; I will accept any non-substantive tweak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Plural forms added 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC) in response to the section below; I regard this as non-substantive, and would use either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
That looks good to me. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No objections here. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Another way

The version proposed above is certainly an improvement, since it does not include anything controversial. But it does miss important provisions. I propose this, which takes the version we have been looking at as a starting point but is more accurate and comprehensive:

Redirects for characters not on a standard keyboard: Sometimes the chosen title will include diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other characters unobtainable by typical English-language users, so they cannot search for the article directly. Provide redirects that use only standard keyboard characters: Hale-Bopp and Hale Bopp join Hale–Bopp among the many redirects to Comet Hale–Bopp.

  • Make articles visible to web search engines. Searching with standard characters will sometimes find titles that include diacritics: "emigre armies" finds Émigré armies of the French Revolutionary Wars, both on Google and within Wikipedia. But some searches for Wikipedia articles succeed only within Wikipedia, and some only on a web search.

(I added the redirect Hale–Bopp just now. And I was wrong in an earlier version of this post! Made some elementary mistakes.)

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point about Google searches. But what's the reason for "Hale–Bopp"? It's not likely to ever be searched for. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"Hale–Bopp" is a standard short form for "Comet Hale–Bopp", and indeed it occurs throughout the article Comet Hale–Bopp. Many users would be familiar with this use of the en dash, and search using it. But until I added that redirect, "Hale–Bopp" did not retrieve the article Comet Hale–Bopp in a Wikipedia search. The software really ought to be fixed so that it would; but currently it distinguishes "-" and "–" unhelpfully. Same for several other pairs of similar characters. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the description should be consistent with the bolded text, i.e., either “not on a standard keyboard” or “unobtainable by typical English-language users” in both cases. I prefer the former, because it’s shorter, more precise, and less presumptive. JeffConrad (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I also don't like "unobtainable by typical English-language users"; what the heck is that supposed to mean? What characters are "unobtainable", and what does it have to do with one's language? Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course wording can always be improved. But I did have a reason for what I proposed. Characters are not really "on" keyboards. "S" (Shift–s) is no more "on" a keyboard standardly set up for Windows than "☺" (Alt-1, with 1 on the numeric keypad). Pedantic, you think? Just look at how the provisions in our policies and guidelines are misunderstood, or twisted for nefarious purposes. With a little joint effort here we can work to make that less likely.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 04:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the only things “on” a keyboard are keys . . . Though I do see your point, it seems to me that characters obtained using the shift states are readily understood as included “on” a standard keyboard. What about “unavailable on a standard keyboard” or something similar? Whatever, the detailed description should be readily seen as describing the same thing as the bold summary, so the reader isn’t left to guess whether that is the case. JeffConrad (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course consistency is important; but not every sort of consistency, always. Sometimes two plain but different wordings help the reader to "triangulate" to a more accurate understanding of what is meant. (Like feedback that paraphrases, in counselling.) Now, I am thinking there are two separate issues here with redirects: one concerns characters that are hard to input; the other concerns web visibility. Perhaps they belong together as equal points under a single banner. Something like this:
Add suitable redirects:
  • For characters not easily typed in. Sometimes the chosen title is hard to search for because it includes diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other characters that are not easy to input. Provide redirects from equivalent titles that use only "typewriter" characters: Hale-Bopp and Hale Bopp join Hale–Bopp among the many redirects to Comet Hale–Bopp.
  • To make articles more visible to web search engines. A search using "emigre armies" finds Émigré armies of the French Revolutionary Wars, both on Google and within Wikipedia. Japanese-American internment is the first hit on a Google search using "Japanese American imprisonment"; but it is not found by the same search within Wikipedia. Some search engines might fail to find Ernő Dohnányi if the surname is input as "dohány" (an easy misspelling, and a common Hungarian word). Well-chosen redirects ensure that the Wikipedia article is found.
(The second point shows incidentally that most diacritics are no problem.)
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The second point shows incidentally that most diacritics are no problem. Oh, come on now! few search engines can be relied upon to recognize Œx as Œx, and not Dx; even fewer can be relied upon to recognize Chateau d'Oex as Château-d'Œx. Ours doesn't, as anybody can see by typing in Chateau d'Oe into our searchbox; that's why we need the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, PMAnderson: you have it wrong. As I explain at greater length below, "Œ" is not a diacritic. I wrote what I meant. Our article Œ#In_French calls it a ligature – in French, a "a true linguistic ligature, not just a typographic one". That's one feature making Chateau d'Oex to Château-d'Œx so compressed and useful: it illustrates several features in one tight example. NoeticaTea? 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree there are at least two different issues here: facilitating searches, both from the Web and from within Wikipedia, and ease of character entry. The problem with “not easily typed in” is that it’s in the eye of the beholder. For practical purposes, “non-ASCII” is probably the most accurate description, because it maps well to characters on (or available on) a standard keyboard and how many titles are coded (or how many Engrisch speakers think they might be coded. But I agree with Blueboar that “ASCII” and many editors may not be acquainted—I’ve known a fair number of people who’ve pronounced ASCII as “askee two” . . . I have no disagreement with Emerson that foolish consistency can sometimes be the hobgoblin of little minds, but the operative word is foolish; I think the wording should be sufficiently close that it’s obvious to the average reader that we aren’t talking about two different topics. To be a bit pedantic myself: rather than “redirects . . . For characters not easily typed in”, I think it would be better to have something to the effect of “Add suitable redirects when the title contains characters not on a standard keyboard”, and then perhaps give the reasons for doing so, much as you’ve suggested. JeffConrad (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, we have established that there are separate issues. Looking through the whole page, I see that some of this redirect business is covered elsewhere – not the part about web searches though. That should be taken as a separate matter for integrating into the page, with some rearranging so that all redirect issues are dealt with consistently, and perhaps all linked neatly to a central section. Later!

Focusing on the immediate task again, I rather like "plain typewriter characters" to refer to what we're after. Many editors have no clue about ASCII; references to "common characters" that are "on" keyboards run into trouble with virtuoso pedants and Mac users. So use language everyone follows immediately. And I still say that varying the wording helps. This is often the case in technical writing: if they don't grasp it one way, they probably will the other way. And one wording corrects any false impressions from the other. Try this (adopting your wording for the start; with web searches deferred as an issue; with greater accuracy about diacritics on characters):

Add suitable redirects when the title contains characters not on a standard keyboard: The chosen title may be hard to search for because it includes diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other characters that are not easy to input. Provide redirects from equivalent titles that use only plain "typewriter" characters: Hale-Bopp and Hale Bopp join Hale–Bopp among the many redirects to Comet Hale–Bopp. On a Wikipedia search, titles with diacritics may be retrieved by prompts to correctly marked forms that appear as the search is typed in. But for reliable searching, include a redirect from a plain typewriter form of the title: Chateau d'Oex redirects to Château-d'Œx.

NoeticaTea? 08:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall, the wording looks pretty good to me—including a couple of examples is a big help. But although “plain typewriter” is probably obvious to most of us here (which may date us . . .), I wonder if it’s obvious to most other editors. I don’t have strong feelings about it, though, so if the proposed wording is OK with others it’s fine with me. JeffConrad (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I've just added another example: an interesting and instructive form, stripped of diacritics and replacing a correct French ligature. O, and a hyphen for good measure. NoeticaTea? 09:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Of all the versions discussed so far, I prefer PMA's... it's short and to the point. One thing I have learned... the more words we put into a policy, the more likelihood that editors will be confused by what we are saying (leading to wiki-lawyering and loopholes for POV pushers). Keep it short. That said, I can agree that examples might help. And that said, I note that all the examples discussed so far relate to dash/hyphen redirects... that is, I think, overkill... the section is about more than dash/hyphens. May I suggest that we start with a diacritic (accent mark) example... then a dash/hyphen example... and finally an "other character" example. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If we have examples at all; one of the problems of MOS is that examples don't help if there is any question whether the case at issue is analogous to the examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I respond to three matters arising.
  • On examples: First I address a remark inserted far above about Château-d'Œx. PMAnderson, what you write there concerns minor technical points that can easily be sorted out. You refer to "Œ" as a diacritic? It is not one, of course. That's one feature making Chateau d'Oex to Château-d'Œx such a compressed and useful example of a needed redirect. (It is one of many to that article.)
Now, a digression on the intricately weird Wikipedia search engine. It is blind to several distinctions in sending prompts to the searcher. If the user's system is enabled in a standard way, entering "Korsakoff s syndrome" progressively narrows prompts for the searcher to the article Korsakoff's syndrome. The searcher can then select that article. This is not a matter of redirects: there is no redirect from Korsakoff s syndrome. If the searcher clicks on "Korsakoff s syndrome", the article is not directly found. A page turns up with the question "Did you mean: Korsakoff's s syndrome" [sic]! (And of course several articles are listed in which the terms occur, with Korsakoff's syndrome at the top.
Try entering "d'alembert euler condition" slowly, and watch the search engine's prompts change. At "d'alembert e" we have two: D'Alembert-Euler condition (a redirect to D'Alembert–Euler condition), and D'Alembert equation. Now try entering a search using an en dash. At "d'alembert–e" we are prompted only for D'Alembert–Euler condition. But if we input a hyphen instead, the prompts are exactly as they were with the space instead. Go (as they say) figure.
Not much of that weirdness can be accommodated in a brief provision at WP:TITLE; but we, behind the scenes, do need to be aware of some of it. What is true, useful, and interesting is that most diacritics (properly so called) are ignored in the prompts; but since we can't be sure of the engine's behaviour, we have redirects from "plain typewriter" versions, and others. Sometimes many for one article.
  • On efficient and effective choice of examples: [Added later.–N] I agree with Blueboar that examples should make their points clearly and separately, even if this means more words. The Hale–Bopp redirects make an important point clearly. I would then add to my draft something purely concerned with diacritics (Okoritofulpos does currently redirect to Ököritófülpös!); and then a different case, to show hybridity and the generality of the principle: Chateau d'Oex as one of the redirects to Château-d'Œx serves this purpose admirably, with the strange hyphen and the rare ligature Œ.
  • On brevity and precision: I strongly prefer an accurate and ultimately helpful version, immune to misinterpretation and abuse. Frankly, the earlier versions in this section fail to achieve that. Yes, brevity is a criterion; but blind brevity has not prevented abuse and confusion in the past. Progressive tinkering (some politically motivated) naturally supervened, and we have the present work of sorting it all out while the page is protected. We need to focus, think hard, and get it right this time.
NoeticaTea? 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Noetica's first proposal above goes on at some length, the second one, with the tendentious examples, is even longer; the rest of us have managed to reduce what this portion of the policy should say into a single paragraph based on what originally stood here, and which does not introduce any novel and debatable claim; xer additions are both novel and debatable. As far as I am concerned, any version in this section is acceptable, although I think some better than others. I strongly prefer saying what we need to say, and on which there is general agreement, to bloviating interminably. In short, we have it right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson, please do not refactor in a way that is manifestly designed to be prejudicial to my closely argued proposal. I have reverted your blatant intrusion in what was a rational discussion of issues. Please post civilly. NoeticaTea? 02:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a German proverb about self-praise which applies to closely-argued. Clearly Noetica's versions are perfect in Noetica's eyes; I don't see argument either in them or the posts in which their author lauds them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You are completely ignoring the fine-grained analysis that I have presented and to which others have responded. Some of that analysis was necessary to correct your own errors, which you introduced with ill-conceived invective against what I had written (look again at your elementary confusion over diacritics). Get civil, or get out. You are being extremely provocative by such behaviour. NoeticaTea? 02:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not. As ever, there is no analysis, only declamation. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That is a step too far, PMAnderson. Anyone here can see that I present painstaking analysis, here and elsewhere. It takes a great deal of my time, and I cannot justify that allocation of time if my calls for respectful dialogue are unheeded. Please see that your comment is withdrawn, with an apology. Until this is dealt with, I will contribute no more to this section, which I initiated in an attempt to resolve a long-standing issue in a collegial way. NoeticaTea? 04:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can see that Noetica's writing greatly pleases Noetica; xes two allies will often agree with xem. I have no idea how much time or pains xe has taken; xe may type even more slowly than I do. But I still see a lengthy series of unsupported claims; it may be my idiolect, but I do not call that analysis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For clarity, here is a working version modified in response to excellent points from Blueboar and others, above:

Add suitable redirects when the title contains characters not on a standard keyboard: The chosen title may be hard to search for because it includes diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other characters that are not easy to input. Provide redirects from equivalent titles that use only plain "typewriter" characters. Hale-Bopp and Hale Bopp join Hale–Bopp among the many redirects to Comet Hale–Bopp. Because of its many diacritics, Ököritófülpös has a redirect from Okoritofulpos. In some complex cases more than one redirect may be needed: Château-d'Œx has many redirects pointing to it, including Chateau d'Oex.

I too would be happy with all sorts of solutions, provided they are not later manipulated: without discussion, or to an agenda that has nothing to do with the points this provision is advertised as making.
NoeticaTea? 03:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with that version, too. I don't see anything potentially tendentious in it. I'd also be OK with the short one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This is at least shorter than the previous attempts in this section; but it is unclear, long, and self-contradictory: many titles will benefit from more than one redirect, therefore it is not limited to "some complex cases". To pick the first example, Comet Hale–Bopp has 16 redirects; all but two are variants of the name in "typewriter" characters. (Many of those are misspellings; but WP encourages redirects from misspellings, in order to get readers where they want to go.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the shorter version in the section above. This is a common sense issue (provide redirects to titles most people are likely to type) so I can't see the point of labouring it or providing examples. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

refocus

Let's re-focus... The following isn't suggested wording... it's a statement of intent (the concept that we are trying to convey to editors in the section under discussion):

  • 1) Some article titles will contain letters and/or characters that are not found on the typical reader's keyboard. 2) This can make it difficult for readers to search for and find the article. 3) So we need to provide redirect pages (from versions of the title that use letters and characters that will be found on the reader's keyboard) to help them.

Are we all agreed that this is the basic intent of the section under discussion? If so, let's just say this in as few words as possible. Don't try to cover every contingency or every variation on the theme. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What has MOS to do with article titles?

All this began when two editors asked why Mexican–American War, as it then was, had a dash in the title. There was the usual unproductive conversation at the talk-page WT:MOS, but there was no evidence as it was that MOS actually required it. There have since been two move requests at Talk:Mexican-American War, both closed with it ending with a hyphen, and other bizarre and WP:LAME events, including the claim that one closing admin was corrupt, and the claim that delegates all matters of punctuation tp WP:MOS because of the see also linking to a different section of MOS.

Since that didn't fly, three editors have come here to rewrite this policy to their liking. I am not convinced; I hold what we have always held.

  1. This is a policy; MOS is a guideline. Policies do not defer to guidelines.
    MOS does not (and should not) refer to the titles of Wikipedia articles except in the (badly dated) section to which we link, a summary of this policy.
  2. Our chief consideration in titling articles are recognizability and naturalness. Both involve titling articles by what the subject is actually called (that assures recognizability, and is one of the benefits of naturalness); this includes the jots and tittles of punctuation. All this is long-standing policy here.
  3. We do diverge from WP:COMMONNAME, but only for reasons which do not apply to this issue; an en dash is no shorter than a hyphen, and it is unlikely that it will disambiguate.
  4. WP:DASH is currently challenged; it bears {{underdiscussion}} tags. It is not consensus; there is no evidence it ever was; many editors actively dislike it. If we were to link to any section of MOS, it should not be this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  5. There remains the question when to create redirects from hyphenated forms. So far everybody has agreed this should be done when the actual title has an en dash [–]; it makes equal sense on those rare occasions when the article title has an em dash [—] (articles on books with em dashes in the title, for example); but because these are quite rare. it makes little practical difference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact it was you who placed the {{underdiscussion}} tag there three months ago, despite the fact that most of that guideline is not widely disputed and has not even been under discussion for a long time now, but now, because the MOS is stuck in the "wrong" version, it's stuck there. By all means, feel free to discuss the role of MOS in WP:TITLE, but please don't use your own personal agenda to destabilize and de-legitimize it through your own agenda-pushing. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter who placed the tag... if a policy/guideline provision is under discussion, the tag is appropriate. This particular provision obviously is under discussion (in multiple locations). While PMA may have started the discussion, he is hardly the only editor to have questions or concerns about the provision in question. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
And it was under discussion well before I placed the tag, indeed well before I joined the discussion; the original threads have now been archived (into MOS archives 118 and 119), but there has been a thread ever since. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This policy has a section on special characters which says 'Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters'. The dash characters are non-keyboard characters so we should have a redirect for them. The MOS describes what dashes are about, this policy does not. There is no deference needed in any direction or conflict or anything that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
However, this page has a method to decide whether or not to use a dash for any given title: follow the usage of reliable sources.
MOS really doesn't; their section on dashes is so long and vague that there was a recent dispute on what it actually means: half-a-dozen editors thought it said A, and three thought it said B. The minority has come here to change this policy, in part because an appeal to usage was a tie-breaker. Hence the dispute here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Show us where the MOS is vague. That can be fixed by using precise language.
The MOS is vague everywhere it relies on analogy from a few examples; "fixing" that would require making MOS the length of a dictionary. Despite Kwami's perpetual cry for "definition", what does MOS ever define? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So, you just made up that comment about the "recent dispute"? I guess I'm not surprised. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't; it's fully linked to the places these things happened. What does one comment have to do with the other? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This policy does not concern itself with formatting and style. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This policy does concern itself with the formatting and style of article titles; it always has. The entire section on Special Characters (except perhaps the list of impossible characters) would have to go to satisfy the rule Kwami has WP:MADEUP; so would the section on -er- Formatting, immediately above it. Are there any advocates for that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(1) Comments I've seen here suggest otherwise. It's certainly not explicit, which a policy should be. (2) I've said nothing of the kind. You really think people don't read the comments you respond to, don't you? — kwami (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. Yes, your own comments, Tony's, and Noetica's claim otherwise. Does that claim have any basis in this policy or any other? This policy has two sections on the formatting of article titles, which also include such style points as omitting leading The. It is true that it doesn't expressly say it addresses style; it also doesn't expressly say it covers articles on left-handed fettucini cutters.
  2. Nothing of the kind? Of what kind? I see no reading of this denial which is not further invention, and await clarification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


If the most reliable sources (ie. RSes from within the field of the topic, as opposed to a general encyclopedia or a news source) do not use the format prescribed by the MOS, doesn't that mean it's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're alluding to, but I think OR applies to content, not to formatting and style. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr Anderson, you are using WP:TITLE as a tool to further an agenda. You are seeking to create disruption and, frankly, chaos, by pitting it against the style guides. It is becoming seriously damaging to the project. You have edit-warred at the page to an extent that far exceeds the spirit of 3RR. I believe you risk being blocked if you continue your campaign. Please desist. Tony (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
In other words, I don't agree with imposing the rules Tony and his two friends made up. To some, this is chaos, as closing a move request in accord with the majority is corruption. Abuse is the last recourse of those who can't persuade anybody to join their POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please could you show a couple of diff were PMA is doing this? -- PBS (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, could we have an answer to the question: why is MOS inventing a format not used by reliable sources not Original Research? If it were a format endorsed by a consensus of style guides in English, that would at least be some justification (although nobody expects style guides to delve into the usage of every specialized field), but MOS doesn't cite any of them either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not Original research because OR applies only to article content and neither the MOS nor this Policy are articles. Policy/guideline pages are based on community consensus. We are allowed to make up our own "rules", provided that those "rules" reflect the consensus of the community. So the question isn't whether the "rule" in question is original... it's whether it reflects the consensus of the community. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Then, as usual, I will return to WP:MADEUP; but you will see what impression these people make on outsiders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Same response... WP:MADEUP refers to article content, not policy/guideline pages. We are free to make up our own rules, as long as those rules reflect the consensus of the community. The only question that relates to policy/guideline pages is... does it accurately reflect the consensus of the community or not? Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If that needs to be asked, the answer is no. MOS is not consensus for titles; it is doubtfully consensus for text. The discussion here two years ago involved many more editors than this; one of the general principles involved was follow reliable sources for titling articles. That was consensus - except for the three, it still is. One of my reasons to ask whether Mexican-American War should be moved was to see whether that was still consensus; the move has now been closed twice; it affirmed that reliable sources should be followed and that MOS should be read literally. If we abandon the use of reliable sources, the results will be as bad as if we abandoned them for content: the nearest bunch of fantasts would install whatever they pleased and claim consensus, since there would be no objective standard, just WP:ILIKEIT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Are people really saying that we should start copying the font and font size and weight and suchlike of our sources? This is getting ridiculous. There is a clear difference between a company name for instance and how it is styled in its trademarks. Going along this path practically all trhe article will need changing because most of the sources use a serif font rather than no-serif. Old stuff will need to be monospaced because it was written with a typewriter. Dmcq (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No, people are not saying we "start copying the font and font size..." of our sources. To start with, we can't; that's a function of the skin and the viewing system, not of Wikipedia. But in general, this is a straw man argument.
As for trademarks, I hold with current policy: Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. In general, we don't do funky spelling; that's one of the things following the sources means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
So perhaps you could explain the difference with what has been going on here. What's different about hyphens/dashes/minuses? Dmcq (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
They aren't.
In Mexican-American War, there is a standard English text format: use a hyphen. A very few style guides (largely those published by Oxford University Press) recommend an en dash; but nobody follows them consistently, even OUP itself. Three editors are so enamoured of this unsuccessful experiment that they have read their favorite version into MOS (although more of us don't see it there), and jumped up and down at the move discussion insisting on their way, but it has now been closed twice against them partly on the basis of this policy; now they are trying to rewrite this policy. Coincidence, doubtless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an actual standard which says to use a minus sign or hyphen or whatever? How do you know it is a hyphen rather than a minus sign or n-dash or m-dash? If you have a problem with the MOS shouldn't the discussion be there or else at one of the Village Pumps? Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean a standard of English, or a standard at MOS? The standard of English, like all standards of English, is the consensus of anglophones in spelling that word with a hyphen (-), not the en dash (–), em dash (—), or minus sign (−). They do look somewhat different; that's why they all exist.
The MOS was under discussion there, when these three good sould came and changed this page dramatically - without discussing it; the old wording was imperfect, but the discussion three sections up is agreeing to improve the old wording and retain the meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There was no change here that said whether a dash should be used or not, only about coping with keyboards if there was a dash. This policy therefore has nothing directly to do with the whole business. It used not to explicitly refer to the guideline and it now does and that's about it as far as far as I can see. So the MOS is the place to talk about all this unless you want to set up some special policy about it for titles if you don't believe a policy rather than a guideline is needed. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite right. All I want here is for this policy to contain the general agreement under #focus above, and to have no special provision about dashes. Blueboar's edit will accomplish that; so will the wording we've all tugged at, three sections up. Which would you prefer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Another point of view

This whole section was started as a personalised and biased attack on dedicated editors who bring to the Project their special skills in the area of style. The tone has been set; and with regret, I find it necessary to respond in the same vein. Some responses to what has been said above by PMAnderson (when I use the word section here, I mean top-level section, not subsection; please do not post within what I post; comment after it):

  • "There was the usual unproductive conversation at the talk-page WT:MOS, but there was no evidence as it was that MOS actually required it."
That is the second sentence of the section PMAnderson has started here. It is prejudicial, like most of what follows it. Conversations at WT:MOS are often heated? That is very often because she and a few others refuse to acknowledge the role of WP:MOS in developing guidelines for the Project. Countering her endless attempts at subversion takes great patience. Sometimes our patience fails.
Unable to counter the majority in discussions at WT:MOS over long-standing guidelines for the hyphen and the en dash, PMAnderson seized an opportunity to subvert those guidelines for the article Mexican–American War. That use of the en dash accorded with the MOS guidelines, and is the way the vast majority of similar articles are named. She chose her battle well. In short, by demagoguery and by pitting her preferred reading of WP:TITLE against her wilful misreading of WP:MOS, she succeeded in hoodwinking an admin who was out of his depth. Graeme Bartlett did not, or could not, follow the arguments, but closed in favour of a new version with a hyphen. This was despite my clear demonstration that this was against guidelines, and not required by policies; and despite my call for broad centralised treatment of the broad issue. Kwami (linguistically adept beyond the dreams of PMAnderson) initiated a new request for move (RM), because of the crass way the first one had been dealt with. After vast tracts of irrelevant and unfruitful discussion, this second RM was closed by another admin: "no consensus for change" (!). This, despite a call for a fresh, properly constructed RM that would deal rationally with the whole suite of related articles, all concerned with that same war. As things stand, some of those articles have a hyphen in their titles (against guidelines), and some have an en dash (in accord with guidelines).
  • "... and other bizarre and WP:LAME events, including the claim that one closing admin was corrupt, ..."
Amid this emotive and inaccurate language, PMAnderson misses the alternative that I prefer: the admin was more probably not up to the task, and therefore vulnerable to manipulation for PMAnderson's hidden purpose. The admin could not answer the questions I put to him at his talkpage.
I hope editors will read that diff cited by PMAnderson. They should not think I claim the "see also" entry in WP:TITLE as the only evidence of that delegation. This policy page hardly touches on punctuation, except for technical problems with special characters. The page is silent on punctuation apart from that; but WP:MOS has always had it as a central concern.
  • "Since that didn't fly, three editors have come here to rewrite this policy to their liking."
Speaking for myself, I came here to counter PMAnderson's undiscussed change to this page, which confused the issue of how and where punctuation is dealt with. (See preceding section.) Not able to weaken MOS in discussion at its own talkpage, she sniped from afar by disingenuously rewording Wikipedia policy.
  • "This is a policy; MOS is a guideline. Policies do not defer to guidelines."
No one has said that WP:TITLE should defer to any guideline. Beyond infelicities in wording here and there, the only clashes between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS are due to text deliberately planted by PMAnderson. The section above (explicitly calling for a natural harmony, not any forced hegemony) is fixing that anomaly that she introduced.
  • "Our chief consideration in titling articles are recognizability and naturalness. Both involve titling articles by what the subject is actually called (that assures recognizability, and is one of the benefits of naturalness); this includes the jots and tittles of punctuation. All this is long-standing policy here."
No, it does not include the "jots and tittles of punctuation". It never has. WP:MOS has always been where those things are managed for the Project. In any publishing exercise, in print or online, the publisher seeks to impose uniform and rational styles for punctuation. Wikipedia has not been an exception; nor should it be. This is the way "recognizability" and "naturalness" are ensured; without it, the results are chaotic, confusing, and contentious for all concerned.
  • "We do diverge from WP:COMMONNAME, but only for reasons which do not apply to this issue; an en dash is no shorter than a hyphen, and it is unlikely that it will disambiguate."
First, WP:COMMONNAME is long and detailed, but pointedly silent on matters of punctuation. So it should be, for the reasons I give above. Second, an en dash is of course longer than a hyphen; and its very raison d'être is to disambiguate. That is why it is recommended in most major style guides, though the details of its suggested deployment vary. And that is why MOS lays out definitive recommendations for the Project.
PMAnderson has regularly used such tags to maintain discord and disputation, when she has not been able to bend the guidelines her way. If a guideline is under discussion, it remains active and respectable despite discussion. Wikipedia works by such discussion. PMAnderson has recently imposed a similar tag here in WP:TITLE. Anyone could do that; but doing that does not remove the force of the section that is tagged.
  • "... It is not consensus; there is no evidence it ever was; many editors actively dislike it."
It is as consensual as it could be, given that hyphenation (including alternatives with en dash) is a notoriously difficult area for all style guides. It always has been. The guidelines at MOS for hyphens and dashes are a much-discussed and long-accepted solution, not a problem. The problem is that punctuation involves choices and compromises, and that it nevertheless ought to be consistent. I myself "actively dislike" elements of the MOS punctuation guidelines; but I accept them for the sake of good order, and when I edit I implement them. So do most editors.
  • "There remains the question when to create redirects from hyphenated forms."
Easily fixed, in innumerable ways. Myself, I'm happy with whatever choice is made in the preceding section – provided that we are vigilant that the page is never again corrupted for external purposes.
  • "However, this page has a method to decide whether or not to use a dash for any given title: follow the usage of reliable sources. ..."
Wrong. This page does not mention punctuation (for good reasons; see above), except for the technical difficulties some marks might pose, and the simple remedies.
  • "... MOS really doesn't; their section on dashes is so long and vague that there was a recent dispute on what it actually means: half-a-dozen editors thought it said A, and three thought it said B. ..."
"Their" section on dashes? Whose? No one has ownership, and no one wants it. The sections on dashes and hyphens need to be read together, of course. They are long, because the issues are complex. It is the role of MOS to deal with that complexity. I am very clear in my understanding of those guidelines, at least. If PMAnderson would like some assistance in grasping their import, I'll be happy to help her. At the appropriate forum: WT:MOS. Of course these guidelines could be made even more immune to misreading; but that might make them longer, not shorter. You can't have everything; and it is the act of a thwarted child to demand it.
  • "... The minority has come here to change this policy, in part because an appeal to usage was a tie-breaker. Hence the dispute here."
What "minority"? Where is tie-breaker needed? What dispute does she refer to?
  • "The MOS is vague everywhere it relies on analogy from a few examples; "fixing" that would require making MOS the length of a dictionary. Despite Kwami's perpetual cry for "definition", what does MOS ever define?"
This is PMAnderson's evasion of a direct challenge from Kwami: "Show us where the MOS is vague. That can be fixed by using precise language." I'd like to see her genuine response to that challenge.
  • "In other words, I don't agree with imposing the rules Tony and his two friends made up."
If they were made up by a minority, they could be tested at WT:MOS. PMAnderson has not succeeded in demonstrating there that they are "made up". Here's a challenge: Which rules in MOS does she claim are "made up"? I'd like a specific answer, with articulated examples (for a change) relating to hyphens or en dashes.
  • "... why is MOS inventing a format not used by reliable sources not Original Research? If it were a format endorsed by a consensus of style guides in English, that would at least be some justification (although nobody expects style guides to delve into the usage of every specialized field), but MOS doesn't cite any of them either."
Original research, as others point out here, is not ruled out in the development of policies and guidelines for Wikipedia – a completely "original" collaborative project. Style guides? On many issues they show consensus, but that has not stopped PMAnderson from complicating a simple question at WT:MOS recently, concerning a point on which all style guides agree, including MOS. (O, all except for her 1926 Fowler's: which she flagrantly misquoted as she often does, and which does not in fact address the issue that was raised.) In fact, MOS guidelines respect major style guides. But where they conflict, it makes choices; and where they do not venture, MOS does venture. It has to, to serve the needs of a totally new publishing environment.
  • "One of my reasons to ask whether Mexican-American War should be moved was to see whether that was still consensus; the move has now been closed twice; it affirmed that reliable sources should be followed and that MOS should be read literally."
Nothing of the sort has been "affirmed", apart from PMAnderson's deviousness in exploiting sentiments for his purpose, and in exploiting the limited competence of non-specialist admins in grasping the issues. MOS should be read literally (and exceptions should be made as appropriate). At the right forum, I will happily show PMAnderson how MOS is to be read accurately. But in the preceding section we see that she doesn't even know the difference between a diacritic and a ligature. So the task may not be easy.
  • "In Mexican-American War, there is a standard English text format: use a hyphen. ..."
Wrong, in two ways. First, if punctuation is a matter of "text format", there are at least four ways in the literature that could be adopted. Wikipedia's guidelines make a rational choice for uniformity among those options. Second, in any case punctuation is orthogonal to other detailing of text. Once a form of name is established from reliable sources, punctuation is then imposed by the publisher: Wikipedia, in this case. According to its comprehensive punctuation guidelines.
  • "... A very few style guides (largely those published by Oxford University Press) recommend an en dash; but nobody follows them consistently, even OUP itself."
Wildly inaccurate. If you really think that's true, raise it at WT:MOS and we'll sort it out. But do so without abusing editors; and withdraw current abuse, or you might well be ignored as a serial pest.
  • "... Three editors are so enamoured of this unsuccessful experiment that they have read their favorite version into MOS ..."
Well, what can a lone voice do in its desperation, apart from claiming that a competent majority voice is an incompetent minority?
  • "... the old wording was imperfect, but the discussion three sections up is agreeing to improve the old wording and retain the meaning."
Discussion in the preceding section was initiated (by me) to remove a tendentious and surreptitious attempt by PMAnderson to diminish the established role of MOS. It deals with punctuation for the Project, and it always has. And it does it well.

We should discuss policies at their pages, and guidelines at theirs. They should all be in harmony, and that harmony ought not to be disrupted in pursuit of petty ends.

NoeticaTea? 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should I bother to reply to this mass of personal attacks, falsehoods, invented grammar, and invented policy? If any third party manages to wade through it and have questions, I will do my best to answer them. If anybody does, it would be nice if they phrased this as separate posts; putting answers in a bunch a mile from the questions, as Noetica demands, renders the answers both inconvenient (for me) and unintelligible (for anyone else).
Noetica has a dab hand at invective (crass, demagoguery), but is there evidence here, or merely scurrility?
I do see one argument here: that because WP:COMMONNAME doesn't mention punctuation, this policy doesn't apply to it. We've had that before It is not only entirely made up (nothing here or at MOS supports the underlying claim that MOS has a position above policies), but that line of argument would make any policy useless unless it said it applies to the whole dictionary, in so many words. "But it doesn't say it applies to articles on Foolander poetry"; "it doesn't say it applies to participles"; "it doesn't say it applies to the invisible pink unicorn." Spare us another repetition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
So you'd like it made more explicit that this policy does not deal with things like whether the name is usually written with serif in reliable sources and that a 1 should be used instead of a l even though most sources for an article were written using a typewriter? Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I would accept either of those; I don't think either is necessary. Wikipedia has no real control over serifs, and the content of the sources written on a typewriter is clear. What I do want is that semantic variations in titles should follow consensus of reliable sources, where one exists. Restoring the substance of the pre-existing wording would do this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I interpret this as meaning you want to change the current

Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters: If the use of diacritics (accent marks) is in accordance with the English-language name, or other characters not present on most standard keyboards are used, provide a redirect from the equivalent title using standard English-language keyboard characters. In particular, provide a redirect from the equivalent hyphenated form to any title using an en dash (for guidelines, see WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN, at WP:MOS); even though many keyboards have dashes, many don't.

to the older form

Provide redirects to non-keyboard characters: If the use of diacritics (accent marks) is in accordance with the English-language name, or other characters not present on standard keyboards are used, provide a redirect from the equivalent title using standard English-language keyboard characters; such characters should only be used when they are customarily used for the subject in reliable English secondary sources. In particular, provide a redirect from the hyphenated form when a dash is used in an article title.
  • Oppose The only reason I can see for suggesting such a change is to remove the mention of the MOS guideline and the bit saying there is a guideline about such matters. This has clearly caused trouble so the guideline should be mentioned. The reference is brief clear and explicit and fully in accord with how such references should be made. It makes it clear that such matters are not for this policy but are an MOS issue. If there is a problem at that guideline that should be cleared up at the guideline. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No, Sir.
That is not the text I propose; but it also is not a change in the guideline; that is a restoration of established language from the non-consensus edit-warring that took place last week. Such matters in article titles have never been MOS isssues; lengthening this paragraph to say so is cruft, asserting what is not consensus - save among a small and disruptive body of empire-builders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not proposed any changed to the MOS guideline, only a decision on this policy. If the old text is not what you want and the current text is not what you want then please state exactly what you do want included in this policy. If you do not quickly state exactly what you want included in that section I will ask for a show of hands on removing the disputed tag. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Your threat is to impose the protected text; this endorsement of it would be contrary to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected

I could accept the text before the revert-warring began or the previous stable text; but the text several of us accept is four sections up; I copy the endorsements. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Redirects and characters not on a standard keyboard. Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other typographical characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to search for the article directly. In such cases, please provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters.

Endorsements cut and pasted from above.

That looks good to me. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No objections here. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
From #Proposed new language, based upon long-standing language to replace the first bullet point in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Special_characters; Dicklyon also has no objection to the proposal in #another way, but some of us do. I have changed the last sentence from singulars to plurals, since some editors who have not endorsed this prefer it; but I have no objection to the singulars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would not object to the version presented here (constructed in the exact form I see it in as I type this); except we should remove the weaselly "please", which occurs for no other provision on the page and is not appropriate in policies or guidelines. I would want an undertaking from editors that no subsequent changes be made later, without first seeking consensus here. I would strenuously oppose the other options PMAnderson offers. NoeticaTea? 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well if it's no big deal, let's take out that "please". Why argue to keep it, when we could instead move forward with an agreement? This contested provision in policy calls for nothing at all, if it is not a requirement to make redirects as needed. NoeticaTea? 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I leave that up to the closing admin; I prefer being civil to those who will read the page. The long-standing version said no more than editors are asked to formulate, and that seems to have worked for a year and a half. The idea that a policy has no content unless it is a series of brusque commands is odd; but if there is no consensus to be polite, we don't have to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe typographical should be taken out, some pages use Greek letters for instance and they are not typographical characters. Typography also includes features such as serif or non-serif, it is better just to stick to characters. Also the please should be taken out, otherwise it seems okay. It then becomes very similar to the old text. I am concerned as to why there has been so much argument about a reference to the MOS as a guideline though. I believe the guideline does and should apply to titles just like any other part of an article. Removal here does not mean the MOS does not apply. Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hhmmm...valid point on the word "typographical". What about "...or other letters and characters not found..."? Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar's amendment is fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So the proposed language now reads:

  • Redirects and characters not on a standard keyboard. Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to search for the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters.

This is acceptable to me. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

checkY Done.  Sandstein  19:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Which title is preferred?

There is a proposal to change List of South African municipalities to List of municipalities of South Africa. Is there a preferred title format for articles that list entities belonging to a place? My gut feel is that "List of <entities> of <place>" looks better. Roger (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"List of municipalities in..." (or "of...") seems to be fairly common, but I'm not aware of any standard. Just plain "Municipalities in..." (or "of...") is also fairly common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I like the last suggestion... "Municipalities in South Africa"... gives editors the ability to expand beyond just a list of city/town names. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There is already Municipalities of South Africa, from which the list was originally split off. (I guess M. in S.A. should redirect to that... I'll do that now). - htonl (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Add section to define 'article title'

A screenshot

I've seen several scattered comments during the last month that indicate ongoing confusion about the difference between "Article title" and "key words in the first sentence". The incomplete footnote is apparently not sufficient for us.

So as the regulars here know, this page deals with the former, which is:

  1. the stuff in the URL, the browser window's label, and
  2. the =Level 1= heading at the top of the page (which our footnote incorrectly claims is in bold-face).

WP:LEAD deals with which words you put in the first sentence. Often, these match, but occasionally, they don't, as in words that have multiple meanings.

Here's my thought: Let's add a picture. Specifically, let's get a screenshot of a page like the one shown on the right here. Let's put a big green oval around the two places where the title appears—at the top of the browser window itself, circling the bit that reads "Celilo Falls", but not "– Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", and also the =Level 1= heading. Then let's put a red box around the non-title in the lead ("Celilo Falls", and possibly also "Wyam").

With that graphic, we can then explain that the stuff in the green oval is the title, and if you're fighting over the stuff in the red box, you follow the MOS, not AT.

I'd like to suggest a page like Mercury (element) for the screenshot, because a dab'd article title should make the distinction clearer to the average editor.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections. Images can sometimes clarify things better than words. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguating orchestral work titles from other non-musical uses

I'm interested in opinions on disambiguating articles on Western orchestral music, specifically in cases where a work shares a name with a non-musical entity. If you care, please discuss it at WT:NCM. —  AjaxSmack  14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Symbols in article titles, specifically Pi

There has been a recent move by the mathematics project to reinstate article titles using the Pi symbol "π"

This came to my attention as one move (Liu Hui's pi algorithm → Liu Hui's π algorithm) amongst a group of moves.

The discussions are here and here

Is π a symbol? (Used to represent the number 3.XXXXX)

As such is it exempt from the guideline "* Do not use symbols:"?

The situation is getting a little out of hand as IAR is being applied by members and admins in the mathematics project, where they claim "obvious consensus" which is only in their project, rather than taking it here for wider discussion or asking in an RfC.

They also have mentioned "There was even talk about updating MATHMOS to reflect this" which means that they are also not even following their own MOS on this matter. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Greek letters are not "symbols" any more than Latin letters or Japanese letters. Unlike Asian languages, however, the majority of English speakers are familiar with Greek letters such as π, β, etc., and these are commonly used in English language texts on engineering, science, medicine, mathematics, etc. We have used Greek letters in titles for quite some time (e.g. μ-law algorithm); they have never been forbidden by the MOS. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree; it's not a symbol of the sort proscribed by the MOS. But it might be better to just call it Lui Hui's algorithm; I don't see any sources with construction "pi algorithm", which seems like an awkward shorthand to me. Dicklyon (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Until only recently, the "Do not use symbols" section used to read

  • Do not use non-language characters: Non-language characters such as "♥", as sometimes found in advertisements or logos, should never be used in titles.

It's unclear exactly what problem the new wording is supposed to avoid. The only discussion I could find about the matter is here. From that discussion, it is clear that "symbol" is supposed to mean Unicode symbols, which is a special block of unicode characters (one that, incidentally, does not include Greek letters). Anyway, the issues discussed there are so peripheral to the question of including π that I think it is safe to say that we should not extrapolate from that discussion that it meant also to exclude Greek letters from article titles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

π is a letter of the Greek alphabet... it happens that it is also used as a universally accepted symbol for a mathematical concept (the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter). We could probably find enough sources to legitimately support creating a entire series of articles about each of the the letters in the Greek alphabet, discussing how they have changed typographically, and how they have been used through the years.
"♥" however is nothing but a symbol. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
See several relevant discussions at Talk:Pi itself. There are some big difficulties, and unfortunately π and other "common" Greek letters are not among the 250-256 ASCII characters that can be easily reached as Alt+ characters on a Microsoft Windows keyboard. One of the difficulties is that in the default sanserif typeface used in Wikipedia, π, or rather π, looks at first glance like double-T in small caps. I generally dislike using special characters when more common ones can properly serve the same purpose on more platforms to more readers, e.g. ue for ü, ss for ß (es-zett), etc. In some section headers or even article titles, π is embedded in a formula or expression that would look strange if "pi" were used, but in many others "pi" would serve just as well. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason that anyone would ever need to access the pi character on a keyboard? Is there some reason that relates to using it in an article title? I'm missing the point here. Also, I'm told the being reachable by Alt+ is useless anyway, as very few Windows users know how to do that even when given the code. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
In the sans serif font that I use, π looks just fine. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion that may be coming here

As a courtesy, I wanted to point out the discussion that is taking place on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Specifically, WT:MOS#Avoiding redirects is moving (me, mostly) in the direction of starting an RfC here in order to adjust the WP:TITLE#Article title format section to include (or not) something about the use of dashes. I wanted to give those of you who watch this page and not WT:MOS an opportunity to speak up before hand. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Titles of things should be translated, yes?

I'm putting this question here because I'm not sure where else it would go. There doesn't appear to be one place, exactly, where it is specified how to handle foreign names of persons, places, and things (or specified that it's not specified.) There is:

The types of things that have names that I am thinking of are: persons, places, (geographical entities (rivers, mountains) and geopolitical entities (towns, provinces)) and things (organizations, individual buildings, and so forth).

For persons and places I am having some disagreements, but don't want to get into that now.

But things? Should they not be translated? I raise this question because I recently came across the articles Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten (actually a redirect to just Rijksakademie) and École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts and Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro).

Well, now see here. This is gibberish. These names mean nothing to me. Is this Wikipedia not supposed to be intelligible to English speakers? In fact, as near as I can make out (not being conversant in the first two languages) the Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten is actually the Royal Academy of Visual Arts, the École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts is the National Superior School of Fine Arts (or maybe National University of Fine Arts or something -- search me) and the Park Pobedy station is the Victory Park station.

Would it kill us to render the names of these entities in such a way that an English speaker will say "Oh, OK, I understand what that is" as opposed to "What the heck is that"? I would think that that former response would be the more desirable, n'est-ce pas?

The lead of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is unclear on this. For notable names, it prescribes (For instance) "Eiffel Tower" rather than "La Tour Eiffel", but for unnotable entities it kind of coughs and shuffles its feet. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) seems considerably less concerned with helping the reader understand the material than with with avoiding bickering among the staff, which seems rather an odd ordering of priorities.

So I guess my question is... is an article title like École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts just a mistake? Can we clarify the guidelines so it's clear that we shouldn't be doing stuff like this? Or is this title according to the guidelines (in which case it's the guidelines that need to be reformed, one would think). Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether to translate or not really comes down to figuring out how the person, place or thing is commonly referred to in English language sources. This often is a translation into English... but not necessarily so. For example... while the tall iron structure in Paris is routinely referred to as the "Eiffel Tower" in English language sources (ie translated), the thin pancakes served with a sauce of caramelized sugar and butter, tangerine or orange juice, zest, and Grand Marnier (lit on fire) are routinely referred to as "Crêpe Suzette" in English language sources (ie not translated... although there is an argument that English language sources usually present it without the little hat over the first e).
In other words... sometimes we translate... sometimes we don't. Follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
For proper nouns, such as the name of an organization, you should err on the side of not translating, unless the sources routinely translate it. A translation may be supplied in the first paragraph, but the article title should be the organization's own, self-identified name.
École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts, by the way, should be moved to the proper capitalization. The proper name is École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, not lowercase, just like the proper name for the US agency is Food and Drug Administration, not food and drug administration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Buit it depends on the organization; University of Nantes, University of Paris, not Université. The capitalization that WhatamIdoing recommends (and I agree) is already the first step in anglicization; French capitalizes only the first letter, not even the B in beaux. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


A problem arises when sources may be indistinguishable from similar things - A series of these were discussed at the village pump Inconsistency in article titles: People vs. the places named after them For the three articles there - even reasoned arguments that a particular name is common tended to be dismissed on the basis that sources for the city were being confused with the person; and beyond that if you showed sources that did prefer the common name for the city they were dismissed on the basis that they weren't reliable sources about romanisation. The final argument made against was that even if you provided a reliable source which was reliable about romanising but retained a little hat (diacritic) then the hat letter should have re-romanised rather than just dropping the hat (as English does for loanwords). I'm not sure what the answer is but common names in English sources shouldn't be dismissed on technicalities of translation or romanisation. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well... hmmm. I mean, my point is that École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts is gibberish, so what do we need to do to fix that? If there is a rule "use what most sources use" and this results in gibberish then we need to change the rule. Right? If there was some rule that (this is a thought experiment) resulted in article titles such as werpiogj32cs09cxlkm3q091q, we would say Well this rule, however well-intentioned, is not working.

Perhaps we could adopt a "Swiss solution"? In Switzerland, everything has three names (I guess), and so we have nicely-titled articles such as Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property instead of Eidgenössisches Institut für Geistiges Eigentum. It seems to work OK. I haven't seen anyone saying OMG the articles on Swiss entities are an impossible mess. We could pretend that everyplace is Switzerland or something.

There are a couple of objections. One is, translation is a bit of an art. One person might translate École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts as "National Superior School of Fine Arts" and another as "National University of Fine Arts" (I guess, I don't know French). But I mean, so what? That's true of all terms. Should "croiseur" be translated as just "cruiser" or "battlecruiser" or "heavy cruiser" or what? Would we just leave in the article as "croiseur" because its a hard question? I would hope not. Either "National Superior School of Fine Arts" or "National University of Fine Arts" are greatly superior to "École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts". Why do proper names have a no-translation exception that doesn't apply to regular nouns?

The second is, OK, if they want to look up more about the entity elsewhere, they are going to find a lot more refs under the untranslated name (for entities that are not much covered in English sources). This is rather weak tea in my opinion. Wouldn't it be better that the average reader understand what the entity is than that, for those few are doing more extended research, the article title match their search term (and for them, the untranslated name is given in the lead; serious researchers are presumable able to figure out how to handle this).

An objection that untranslated name is more accurate would not be too valid I don't think. First of all, they're not necessarily more accurate. "Beaux-Arts" actually refers (to people to whom its not gibberish) to a particular architectural style if I recall correctly, so in this particular example the name is actually misleading. Second of all, if all or most of the refs are in French, then the article should be in French also if you're going to take this view. But we don't post articles in French, here. We translate. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We translate—but we do not translate names. We have articles at César Chávez and Domingo Vásquez, not "Caesar Chavez" and "James Vasquez" (the English translation). The famous cathedral is Notre Dame de Paris, not "Our Lady of Paris". We write about the Arc de Triomphe, not "the Triumphant Arch". When our English-language sources refuse to translate the name, we correctly follow their refusal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Forza Italia is not "gibberish", it is the only correct name of the party. Would you translate it as "forward Italy" (as the article currently claims", or as "Strength Italy", or any of the other meanings of Forza? Unless something is routinely translated in English, we should keep the original form. That doesn't mean that the more descriptional parts of names can't be translated, so Castle instead of Chateau or Schloss (if they are about a castle), but Châteauneuf-du-Pape, not "the pope's new castle". Fram (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, whether to "translate" a name depends on how it is presented in English Language sources. If a significant majority of sources refer to something in a "translated" form (example: Eiffel Tower rather than "La Tour Eiffel") so do we... if a significant majority refer to it in untranslated form (Bundestag rather than "Federal Diet") then so do we. We don't necessarily use the "official" name ... we use what ever name is most commonly used in English language sources. This goes for the names of people as well... in deciding whether to use Andre or André... we look to see how it is presented in English language sources that refer to the person. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

Per previous discussion, now archived, I have added an image that differentiates between the article title itself and the names appearing in the first sentence. If anyone feels inspired to make a better image, then please feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro

You know what we probably do need is a better intro (or lead, lede, opening, whatever you want to call it). The current intro is only three sentences, and they don't summarize the policy at all. We could, and should, mention "use nouns", along with engvar, commonname, precision, etc... within the intro paragraph(s).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOUN belongs in the lead. There are several exceptions (most obviously, when the article title is the title of the subject: Try to Remember and so on). It's a useful rule of thumb; but it should not be pushed beyond its purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. This isn't about NOUN itself, though. The fact is that there really isn't an intro (or lead), currently.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That's because the first section evolved out of the lead; it's too long to be the lead. But I've written a summary of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed Subject to Topic

I changed all instances of [article] subject to [article] topic for consistency with other guidelines (I am confident that topic is the predominent term in most of our guidelines). Indeed they are synonyms in most contexts, but I was recently asked by a WP newbie who was reading our policies for the first time--What's the difference between an Article subject and an Article topic? We want consistency in our titles, we ought to demand simple consistency in our guidelines. One may refer to an article's subject in discussion without confusion, but our guidelines ought to use consistent terminology, and article topic seems to be the best terminology. --Mike Cline (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's logical. Sounds fine to me.--Cúchullain t/c 12:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I basically agree... my only hesitation is whether we should use "subject" in instances where we are talking exclusively about bio-article titles. But it is a hesitation, not an objection. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in contexts where it's clear that we're talking about an entity of some sort, "subject" sounds much better. Since that applies in most of the cases in this guideline where the word was changed, I would be tempted to revert back. But I'll wait for others' thoughts.--Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree, topic is better, but Blueboar has a point. What do you suggest as an alternative, Bb? Tony (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Remember, we are seeking consistency with other guidelines. Topic and Subject are synonyms, and as nouns have almost exactly the same definition. Subject has no special meaning in the context of a bio. The topic of a bio and the subject of a bio article are the same thing. We don't say the species of a biology article, the name of an organization article, etc. The inconsistent and interchangable use of topic and subject can lead to confusion. Why is the same thing called by different terms? If you think about this in anatomical terms, an article has a title, a topic, a lead, sections, and other stuff. A lead is a lead. We don't use different terms in different contexts. Doing so, especially across guidelines is just poor policy writing. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
For me there is a subtle difference between "subject" and "topic". The subject of the article Judd Trump is Mr Trump, while the topic is Mr Trump's life and career. Of course this distinction is too fine to make anything of explicitly, but it still seems to be a reason for preferring "subject" over "topic" in some contexts, particularly contexts like "the name of the article subject", where it sounds rather odd to say "the name of the article topic". --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Subject is the better choice, except for articles which don't have a subject, and aren't about something - but allude vaguely to a topic. For my part, there seems to be an obvious solution to such articles; but some people have called me a deletionist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOUN and nutshell

Per this guideline, all article titles are (wherever at all possible) to be nouns.

I added it to the nutshell; but it has been taken out for no good reason I can tell.

I wish to put it back again, it's in no way specific, all article titles are to be nouns of one form or another, per the guideline, and this is what we are summarizing in the nutshell.Rememberway (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The reasons behind this are discussed quite well here, but it predates that by quite a long way.Rememberway (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The "wherever at all possible" aspect of this is what's important here. We should prefer that article titles be nouns of noun phrases, but there's certainly no requirement for that, and there shouldn't be. It's a misreading of the policy here to say that "all article titles are to be nouns of one form or another". That's just not what the policy says, and it's an unrealistic stance regardless (not all article titles can be nouns, and there's no reason to try to force people to come up with noun phrases where they don't fit).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No. The guideline clearly says that article titles should be nouns. If you disagree with that part of the guideline, you should not try to airbrush it out of the summary, you should try to get it changed. In the meantime that 100% definitely is what the guideline says, and thus it must be in the summary of the guideline, since that's what it says.Rememberway (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOUN. Inserting anything specifically saying "noun" or "noun phrase" is not an appropriate addition to the nutshell. If you guys want to discuss changing the 6th bullet point in the Article title format section then we can talk about that, but until that's changed then changing the nutshell is inappropriate.

Also, not that it's really pertinent to this topic, but Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy, not a guideline.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOUN? I quote: Use nouns: Titles should be nouns or noun phrases. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages, as at Organic. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb will be the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming.Rememberway (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The policy is very clear.Rememberway (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I also read that sixth bullet point and didn't see any exceptions for article titles. Ohm, can you clue us in as to what you have in mind? An example of article whose title is not a noun phrase? Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Every single rule in the wikipedia has been IARd at some point, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be crystal clear about what any given guideline or policy actually says. A nutshell on a policy isn't supposed to be summarizing the entire wikipedia anyway, it's summarizing the policy.Rememberway (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me what the problem is with the change to the nutshell sentence, but... obviously, I'm missing something, or you guys are, or something. Nouns aren't an absolute requirement for article titles. Where titles can be nouns (or noun phrases) they should be, but where it makes more sense not to use nouns then we should be free to do so (and relying on IAR to do that is not a solution. It needs to be explicit that nouns are preferred, but it shouldn't be some ironclad rule. IAR does not exist for people to directly oppose what is written in policy, it's there so that people don't have to check what policy is before making every edit). It seems to me that the change we're discussing here is an attempt to make the "Use Nouns" clause more rigid, which I don't believe is needed. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise (that this isn't the intent, or that it does need to be more rigid), but so far I don't see anything convincing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it was the intent of the people that wrote this policy that all or virtually all articles have noun titles, you can check back in the archives.Rememberway (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly put noun phrases instead. Is that more acceptable? Or are there exceptions to this that we need to consider? Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Even using the softer language (the "should be" qualification) along with the more open "noun phrase", that doesn't belong in the nutshell. Without the context of the rest of the section that WP:NOUN is located in, stating that "titles should be nouns" or anything similar is too imperative.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? What particular context would that be?Rememberway (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The context provided by the other points in the section, and the fact that the point is in that section.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have softened it a bit more, with "should, in most cases, be"... yes, titles will often be nouns or noun phrases, but I can foresee situations where that is overly restrictive. Blueboar (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I've undone your change, it's clearly is not consensus to make that change right now. It's not most cases (in my book that's like 50-95% of something), it's more like 99.999%, a non noun title is exceptionally rare in the Wikipedia, and fairly arguably wrong wherever there is one.Rememberway (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone just reading this debate I'm genuinely baffled. Here's how this looks to the outside observer: The policy currently says article titles "should be nouns", but some editors are objecting to repeating that fact in a summary of the policy. I simply don't understand how the objection that on rare occasions another part of speech is necessary applies with any more force to the summary than to the policy. If the objection is that whatever bit of nuance exists is lost in the summarization, only an idiot would think that the summary contains every detail of the policy, and we needn't worry ourselves about idiots. If we did, we wouldn't be able to have a summary in the first place. So what am I missing? -Rrius (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm equally baffled, since the objector hasn't even provided a single example of an exception; he must have something in mind, but isn't telling us what. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
OK... what about Twist and Shout? or Don't ask, don't tell - Not a noun or a noun phrase to be seen. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, non-nouns/noun phrases are used when it's a proper name (like "Twist and Shout"; the book Go, etc.) or an article about a non-noun term ("Don't Ask Don't Tell"; or ther word gay). In both cases, however, they act as the noun when they're the subject of the sentence ("Twist and Shout is a song..."; "Gay is a term..."). The articles don't begin, for instance, with: "To twist and shout is to perform a particular dance" or "Gay people are those whose sexual orientation is towards someone of the same sex."
That said, I don't think the bit about nouns ought to be in the nutshell summary. It's supposed to be a brief summary of the core meaning of the guideline, but adding this one thing is just picking and choosing one particular element that doesn't even have its own section or subsection. It's being overemphasized, and doing that may downplay more important sections of the page.Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I definitely agree that discussing it in the nutshell is overkill... and I question whether it should be in the body of the policy either... at minimum, it would require extensive caveats added to explain the exceptions (such as non-nouns/non-noun phrases used in a noun context, like "Twist and Shout"). Unfortunately, a lot of editors focus on the literal language of a policy and ignore the intent and broad principles behind it, and I could easily see this bullet point causing arguments over whether "Don't ask, don't tell" or "Twist and Shout" are in some way "illegal". Yes, our article titles are usually nouns or noun phrases... but do we really need to say that in the policy? Do we need to require it? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
As I say, it's not just usually, it's virtually every title in Wikipedia. It might be reasonable to expand WP:NOUN and add notes to explain how those kinds of titles work (used like that in the title they're both actually noun phrases), but in any case I think that it should definitely remain in the nutshell, because it helps people understand the policy; which after all is the sole purpose of the nutshell.Rememberway (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think saying it in the body of the page is necessary, as it gets us to be consistent and it has a wide consensus. We may want to add the caveat about "non-nouns used as nouns", but it doesn't seem to have been a huge problem in the past. Most people understand the use-mention distinction, so our articles tend to be formatted right in this way. But I still doubt the usefulness of the addition to the nutshell summary, and I don't think this conversation can be taken as evidence that there's consensus to add it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of a nut-shell is to summarize the key (big picture) concepts that lie behind the policy. For this policy, the key concepts are: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency (with Recognizability being the most important). WP:NOUN is, at best, a minor formatting point (made almost in passing)... it is not a key concept and so should not be included in the nutshell. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. I suppose we can continue the separate conversation about adding notes to the article body on non-nouns used as nouns.Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it is a key point.Rememberway (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If it's not a key point, then why has it got its own personal redirect?Rememberway (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
And exactly how do you think that adding two words to a nutshell somehow magically detracts from the entire policy?Rememberway (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not like the sentence is ridiculously long already. You're behaving more like you're trying to hide or change the fact that they're all supposed to be nouns.Rememberway (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
And if it's so bloody obvious, and not important to say, then how come V=IR didn't even know that it was required? And you, Blueboar, apparently didn't even know that they virtually always are, and thought that they were only mostly nouns?Rememberway (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a huge mismatch between what you're saying is important to know about this policy and what people actually know, right there.Rememberway (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's only one of many important points in the policy. Adding this wordage to the nutshell summary is unnecessary and overemphasizes it in relation to the policy as a whole. That it has its "own personal redirect" is unimportant; WP:NDESC has its own redirect too. And adding the wordage does nothing to reduce the type of confusion you're talking about. This can be solved by adding a note to the article body, but simply forcing the same wording into the nutshell won't help.Cúchullain t/c 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Why does WP:NOUN have its own shortcut? Because someone thought it would be useful to have a short cut to it, no more no less. Lots of policy points have shortcuts (even minor ones) ... that does not mean they are central to understanding the policy in the big picture, or that they need to be mentioned in the nutshell. Take WP:SPS... it's a shortcut to a very important policy point, but we don't mention the issue of self-published sources in the nutshell of WP:V... because it isn't really crucial to summarizing the concepts that underlie verifiability policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for implying that I don't know what I'm talking about, Rememberway. I appreciate it. What a great example of collegial behavior, there. (PS:Great job explaining the issues here Cuchullain. You certainly explained things better then I!)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Why does WP:NOUN have its own shortcut? Because someone thought it would be useful to have a short cut to it, no more no less. But nobody removed it afterwards, and it's been there for a long, long, long while. So it is actually a lot more and not less like you're trying to imply. And can I perhaps ask why people are repeatedly stating things that are patently untrue in this discussion? I think that real collegial discussion involves an absolute minimum of misstating of facts, and an attention to detail.Rememberway (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Many of the points have their own shortcuts. They are also important, but not included in the nutshell summary.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand the objection. At first it seemed to be something about the policy itself, but now it seems adding "nouns" will somehow detract from the summary. At this point I'm not not sanguine about getting a satisfactory answer, but I'll ask anyway: how does adding three words hurt? Why do you think noting the heavy preference for nouns in passing does such damage to the summary? To both sides, why is this so bloody important? It does seem that WP:NOUN is one of the only parts of the policy that isn't summarized by the old version of the heading, but who actually reads the nutshell summary anyway? -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I just added it because, as you say, it wasn't necessarily obvious (although people usually do do the right thing, although they do sometimes mess it up) and it wasn't in the summary. At the moment it seems to have been changed to encourage people to not do the right thing, which is even more bizarre.Rememberway (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I actually have several other problems in the format section... a few of the items are worded as must do mandates, when actually they are preferences (good practice, but not required). WP:Noun is one of those. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This page identifies what its chief principles are: Recognizability, naturalness, shortness, precision, and consistency; some of them are not in the nutshell. WP:NOUN is a reasonable idea, but largely because it helps keep different articles being written on the same subject, one phrasing it as a noun, another as a verb. If it conflicts with any of the five principles in a given case, it can and should be jettisoned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not right, it's a must-do. Encyclopedia articles are about a field of study or a person or place or similar. Names of fields of study like astronomy, biology, tennis etc. are all necessarily nouns in English, as are person names and place names. So this isn't an optional thing. You have to use noun titles.Rememberway (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Rrius, there have been several objections to the addition. My objection is that this is only one of many important points in the policy; adding it is unnecessary and overemphasizes this one point compared to all the other ones. WP:LOWERCASE, WP:DEFINITE, and WP:DEFINITE are also important, but aren't in the summary. National varieties of English and Treatment of alternative names have their own sections but aren't included in the nutshell.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion is controversial, and in any case your entire kind of argument is deeply flawed. As with NPOV, neutrality is almost never reached by removing information from articles or summaries, the summary is supposed to be summarising the entire policy in a neutral way, not just including only the bits that you happen to like the best.Rememberway (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
If anyone's trying to include "just the bits that you happen to like the best", it's you. I've already explained that there are many other points that aren't mentioned in the nutshell summary, which is meant to be just that - a summary not a reiteration of every single point (or a nit-picked couple of points).--Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I would be very happy with having those added to the nutshell as well, in a very highly summarised form. You're trying to exclude material, not me, and doing it even to the point where it's not an accurate summary.Rememberway (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you really proposing to include every single element of the policy page in the nutshell summary? It could scarcely be considered "in a nutshell" anymore.--Cúchullain t/c 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The nutshell is fine as it is. As Cúchullain says, there are a number of points that it could mention, but the core points are already there. There's simply no reason to expand them. I came into this debate with absolutely no preconceived notions on this subject, but it "felt right" to agree with not specifically adding WP:NOUN to the nutshell, and the points that both Blueboar and Cúchullain have made here have only strengthened my opinion on the matter. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but I have yet to see a compelling rational for doing so.

(PS.: This isn't a bad subject to discuss, in my opinion. As I said, I'm open to suggestions here. Examples of the use of WP:NOUN in practice might be compelling, one way or another.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll forgive me if I point out that you did start with the preconceived notion that nouns were not required by WP:NOUN, and it's also been pointed out that they were required, and it has additionally been pointed out that all article titles are actually in fact nouns or noun phrases. And there has historically been retitling required when people choose adjectives for example, which is not all that uncommon.Rememberway (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, why not? Have you even tried? No of course not, you're too busy arguing that black is white as usual; articles shouldn't be nouns at all or we should be free to do whatever the heck we want!!! Anything!!!Rememberway (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Big deal: "Titles also avoid unnecessary use of emphasis, unusual characters and unnecessary small words."Rememberway (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I object fairly strongly ro this edit; Rememberway is pushing his POV that nouns are a "must-do", which has received no real support in this discussion. As a statement of fact, the claim that we always use "nouns and noun-phrases" is exaggerated; having it as a rule, it misses the point of Wikipedia space; it's sound advice, but not beyond exception. I am very tired of people who make policies and guidelines into arbitrary "rules", which they can enforce without rationale; I am reverting, and will dispute any further efforts on this enthusiast's part. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, if it's not required, name one non noun title. Come up with a single really good example. You seem to be claiming that it's not always required, but I can think of no major counterexamples, and certainly no common ones. You're the one changing the rule, but I don't think you can justify the relaxation, what are you relaxing it for?Rememberway (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just added two. You misunderstand what this policy does; it's not a set of orders, to be enforced by dogmatists; it's generally sound advice, supported by consensus.
That we have had one well-meaning soul making more of this sentence than it was ever intended to be is a sign that it is time to explain it - before somebody else makes the same error. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting and unusual way you've decided to go when you're changing a named policy. Wasn't it written like this for a good reason? So far as I can see, you've just rewritten it to permit article titles for individual adverbs, after all, what other title can you use to refer to an adverb?Rememberway (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Having just read the conversation to which Rememberway links, I observe that he is misreading it. Using nouns is an example of consistency, and use of nouns like Monophyly is an example of that. But there is consensus that consistency should yield to a strong enough case based on the other four principles; and when there is a sufficiently strong counter-consistency (call a work of literature by its title) that is sufficient in itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, a literature's title is a noun phrase you use to refer to the literature.Rememberway (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
So Try to Remember is a noun phrase? It seems to be missing - nouns. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup. It's a noun phrase that refers to the song. In normal English you would put quotes around it, but the other policies say you can't do that in titles, Use is like: "Try to remember" is a song... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rememberway (talk • contribs)
Which can be done with any word whatever: "Eat is a verb which..." In claiming that his rule is universal, Rememberway has empried it of content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You can't really be serious "try to remember" is the name of a song, it's a proper noun.
But yes, that's there's where other policies kick in (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), and so you would have to merge it with Eating, which is a noun. We're not supposed to have articles solely on terms, that's what a dictionary entry is defined to be, an article on the term itself.Rememberway (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't it written like that for a good reason? No, almost certainly not. Someone wanted to make the point "use nouns", with which everyone agrees in priniciple, and wrote something down; the exact wording (and whether we always use nouns) hasn't come up until now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary. It's very simple. Every title is a noun or noun phrase because it's the name of the topic of the article. In a dictionary it would simply be a word, but here it's always a name of some topic that the article is covering.Rememberway (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
For every Wikipedia page, there is a summary that is simple, direct, obvious, and wrong. Our titles are not names; this page was moved from WP:Naming conventions in order to avoid claiming they are names; they are convenient labels. To say otherwise is to encourage the nationalist violence (see the Macedonian disaster, among many others) which insists that articles must have the "real names" (i.e. the ones in the nationalist's language) of their subjects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying that this is a euphemism for 'name'. Fine, that's what I said, it's a name. And a label is also simply a type of name. It should just read "noun or noun phrase" because by definition, all names are nouns or noun phrases. So there are and can be no counterexamples, and so equivocating like this is at best, completely pointless. It clearly needs to be reverted back to "noun or noun phrase" with no equivocation.Rememberway (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This artlessly conflates two positions: that names must be noun phrases, and that labels are names. From this, Rememberway concludes that labels must be noun phrases. But that, in any sense in which "noun phrases" is more restrictive than "phrases", is false: "Eat me", "drink me", "poisonous" are perfectly good labels.
As for the rest of this: No, it is not saying "do whatever you want"; it is giving sound advice, but our policy must recognize that we have innumerable special circumstances. Nor am I saying that "title" is a euphemism for name; if we wanted names, the arguments of the POV-pushers would be sound (when their facts are); our titles do not claim to be names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside your bad faith accusations about POV pushing; Labels are always names, and names are always noun phrases. Tell me again why you want to twice equivocate this point, because you're not making any sense.Rememberway (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
To swing off of the issue of the nutshell for a moment... I think we do need to clarify WP:NOUN itself to explain that names (such as a song title) are proper nouns ... even though though they may not contain any nouns. I could easily see someone trying to argue that Try to remember is an "illegal" article title because it does not contain any nouns. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems simpler to explain that we usually use nouns, and I have so tweaked it. If we don't, much the same someone will be protesting that Don't ask, don't tell isn't a proper noun; and that discussion seems utterly futile. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't ask don't tell is a noun phrase. A rolling stone gathers no moss is a noun phrase (it's the name of the proverb). Try to Remember is a noun phrase (name of a song). I like the way you've added examples of how article titles are noun phrases. Particularly with the proverb, it's a bit confusing I imagine; but consider the opening sentence A rolling stone gathers no moss is an old proverb' where it is a noun phrase (i.e. the subject) of the sentence. That's also how it's used in the title.Rememberway (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, come on now. A "rule" that permits everything is utterly worthless. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them "noun phrases", which are typically defined as a noun plus modifiers (or a pronoun that replaces a noun plus modifiers). They are terms or titles that serve as a noun/noun phrase in the sentence.
I think at this point we've gotten away from the point of the rule, which is to ensure that article introductions are presented consistently. We don't use verbs-as-verbs or adjectives-as-adjectives. Hence, we don't begin any articles with "To run is to move quickly by foot" or "Red objects are those reflecting particular wavelengths of light"; we say something along the lines of "Running is moving quickly by foot" and "Red is a color..." Articles beginning with "'Try to Remember' is a song" or "'Gay' is a term" are totally in accordance with the rule, even if the words themselves are not nouns. We're trying to make too much and too little of this policy point at the same time.--Cúchullain t/c 14:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony's back to adding his obscure jargon. AFAICT, "nominal group" is just Halliday's term for "noun phrase". If it is a synonym, then it's worse than useless, as it's obscure and the relatively few people who are familiar with it will know the normal English term "noun phrase" anyway. If it's not a synonym, as Tony (and the article) has argued but never explained or supported, then we should not present it as if it were a synonym. Either way it doesn't belong. — kwami (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I just copied it in from WP:MOS because they were slightly different, and they shouldn't have been, and the WP:MOS version was linked. I glanced at the article but thought that a nominal group was a subset of noun phrase, but at the moment I think you're right, and they should be merged, seem to be the same thing. But we definitely need the links.Rememberway (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Always ignore WP:MOS.
In particular, the section of MOS that claims to summarize this policy is two years old, from before a major rewrite of this policy; that's why it gets the special characters wrong. As a guide to English usage, or to Wikipedia consensus, it is wrong more often than it is right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
When a guideline uses slightly different wording than a policy, and there is a need to conform them (there isn't always such a need), I would suggest that: a) a centralized discussion on the issue needs to take place before conforming, and b) the starting assumption should be that the guideline should be updated to match the policy (not the other way around). Yes, there will be times when consensus indicates that we should change the policy, but 99% of the time it is the guideline that should change. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"ranking" criteria

The first two criteria (Recognizably and Naturalness) are directly connected to WP:COMMONNAME (which I think is the single most important provision of this policy) So I think they are a step above the others in importance. I have been bold and divided the criteria into two sections (diff here... I was logged out when I made the edit, but it's mine. If you think the edit too bold, please revert and we can discuss. Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree. WP:COMMONNAME is important because it represents two principles (and often the other three; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not the common name in part because it is so long), not because those two are inherently weightier than the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Recognizability

Recognizability – "an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic."

I have read this sentence may be a dozen times. I do see the intent, from the word "recognizability". However may be I drank too much beer yesterday, but I fail to grasp its logic (too much beer yesterday?). (The second sentence is clear.)

I tried to do some analysis. The phrase says connects four pieces: title, topic, article, and the reader. It is constructed in the way that the actor is the title, i.e., the title must confirm to the reader that the article is about the topic. Now, the question is how does the reader know what the topic is in the first place? Did he learn it from the title? If yes, then it is the article text that makes the reader confirm that he indeed reads about the topic defined in the title and not some vandalistic hoax. On the other hand, if the reader learns the topic from the article, and he is "familiar with it" then what is the high importance of confirmation coming from the title so that it is "Rule #1" here?

The second sentence of the description excludes the following scenario: the reader sees the title "Leopold Theophuck Eugentric, 1st baron Hausmaus, duke of balbla...", wonders, starts reading and then in dawns upon him: heck, it is about Leon "Iron Ass" Hausmaus!

But again, to an extent the title "Leopold Theophuck ..." does give some extra affirmation that the article indeed about the topic, because from "See also" section we learn that there was one Leon "Iron Arse" Hausmaus, who was not baron, so that the title indeed confirms that we are reading about the correct Hausmaus. Still again, most probably we have already seen this from the article text...

So, what else does the first sentence serve for? (there is something, as implied by the words "One important aspect of this..."; so what are other aspects?)

I do have some ideas how to phrase this differently, but without knowing the full extent of the purpose of the rule I cannot suggest its summary. (I would like to be constructive, not just bitching.)

By the way, what's the deal with "ideal"? We know there are no such thing. I.e., it is of purposeless bell and whistle. Kaligelos (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just slogged through that whole post (no offense intended, but that was rather long winded...). I don't really have a direct answer for you, except to say that we don't generally write policy or guidance pages with a legalese outlook. Pulling out that single sentence fragment and parsing it in that manner isn't really something that is constructive, in my opinion (although please note that I'm not at all saying that you're being disruptive). Can you simply state what you'd like to change the point to read?

To me, the main reason for that point is to introduce WP:COMMONNAME (or, at least, one aspect of COMMONNAME). It's a slightly long winded statement that article titles should be the most recognizable description of the topic available. Using the word "ideal" is intentional as well, for the very reason that you brought up yourself: we all know that there's usually no such thing as an ideal situation.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice it was THAT long. My point is that I see this phrase as being of dubious logic. And this parsing was my attempt to demionstrate myself that I am not an idiot. And I am not for legalese in policies; just the opposite. My point was that the sentence looks like first best legalese clause: it looks sensible, but you have no idea what to read into it: you are afraid that the simple interpretation is somehow not enough.
If you say it is "slightly winged" from "article titles should be the most recognizable description of the topic", then why don't you just say so, plain and simple? And skip all this nitpicking ("readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in"... although not complete ignoramuses; while keeping in mind some of them may be ignorant but they hold the are not.....))
In other words, my original question may be narrowed down to: What does the discussed definition include important beyond the boldfaced quote of yours? Kaligelos (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with that (Changing it to say "article titles should be the most recognizable description of the topic."), pending further discussion with reasons it shouldn't be changed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The page is full of gobbledy, and this fragment is no exception. Why not: ""an ideal title will confirm that the article is indeed about that topic to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." But I still don't like it much. Kaligelos's suggestion seems good. Tony (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
changed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Not most recognizable; recognizable is enough, and the superlative is not particularly meaningful. If there are two names about equally common, we can choose between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not "most recognizable", because sometimes we need to choose the second-most-recognizable for reasons of precision or disambiguation.
In the first example above, the first sentence should solve the reader's problem: Only one name should be the article title, but multiple names can (and frequently should) be provided in the first sentence. This policy does not control the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Title-initial deixis

Fairest_of_the_Fair—the title is clearly The Fairest_of_the_Fair. What's the practice in these cases? Tony (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • First, how is deixis important here? I don't understand the use of the word. More on point though, WP:TITLEFORMAT covers this explicitly in the fourth bullet point: Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). So, by my reading, that article should be at The Fairest of the Fair.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Deictics are words that constrain a noun in terms of the speaker's/writer's here and now. Deictics in English include "the", "a", article-blank, "this" (the one close to me), and "that" (the one not so close to me). Here, "The" is at issue. Thanks for the advice; I'll move the article now. Tony (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The has many meanings; it can be deictic; neither use here need be. Over the road means "this road" (of the many roads that exist); but "the Fair" means all the fair, and the "the Fairest" is unique; neither depends on the speaker.
      • But this is all dictum, except to proposals to rephrase; the article should be - and has been - moved on the ground of accuracy, not meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

PRECISION, titles differing only in caps

The section Precision and disambiguation (shortcut WP:PRECISION) does not seem clear to me;

Whether or not two articles which differ only in capitalization need a parenthetical disambiguation.

It gives two examples, which seem contradictory, viz.

  • Red Meat is an article about a comic strip
  • Red meat is an article about the food

I particularly think this can cause confusion in the predictive search text.

The issue recently arose through a request regarding a movie, Jumping the Broom, and confusion with the marital custom Jumping the broom - discussion can be seen on Talk:Jumping the Broom#Change This Article Title.

Therefore, can we discuss this and try to arrive at consensus, and clarify the guideline - to explicitly state the recommendation in such cases, whether or not it is appropriate to rename one article to add a parenthetic clarification, e.g. "Jumping the Broom (film).

I'd like the guideline to quite simply state that Articles whose titles differ only in capitalization should/should not be renamed to have a clarifier in parenthesis in the article title (with examples).

Thanks in anticipation,  Chzz  ►  02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But, consensus that article titles differing only by capitalisation is allowed (the decision on that RfC) is not the same as a guideline on advice regarding best-practice. OK, so, it is allowed. Is it recommended?  Chzz  ►  13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that the examples you've provided are appropriately addressed through the use of hatnotes. The real question is why would we bother with unnecessary disambiguation? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know; it appears (e.g. from Talk:Jumping the Broom) that some people think we should. I think a lot of the reason is, the 'predictive text' - yes, it'll show both - but most people will think they're the same thing. And yes, the hatnotes do help to some extent. I'm really, personally, not particularly bothered whether we recommend disambiguating them in parentheses or not; I'd just like it to say whichever is recommended, in the guideline - to avoid confustions like we've just had on that page. If we could point to a guideline and say 'this is the consensus agreed best practice', that would avoid future similar issues.  Chzz  ►  02:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been determined that it's permitted, so if there are "future similar issues", it's only because some editors want to revisit the consensus. I'm not sure why we have to make recommendations either way. If there is a change in the consensus, fine, but in the meantime it's okay unless in the particular circumstances of a specific article someone advances an accepted reason why it doesn't work in that case.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a clear guideline; that's why I'm asking. If the guideline (based on consensus) is that it is fine to have titles that differ only in caps - fine, we know where we stand. If it isn't - also fine. Currently, I do not know which is recommended; the guideline is unclear, therefore next time a user asks me, I'd like to be able to say, "THIS is what we think".  Chzz  ►  22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
What we think is that a blanket rule is less useful than editors using their very best judgment to make a decision based on the actual facts and circumstances presented in the individual case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I repeat; I'm not looking for a hard rule - just a guideline. Because, clearly, opinions differ. If the guidelines stated that it should be considered carefully on a case-by-case basis, then at least there would be some guideline advice - instead of wasting hours searching for it, as happened here, when it inevitably arises again; that's what guidelines are for, surely - helping advise. It's a guideline, not a policy.  Chzz  ►  14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's permitted. It's okay to have titles that differ only by caps. That's effectively the guideline. I'm not sure how much more clear that could be. As WhatamIdoing says, one should use their best judgment in the particular circumstances where the issue arises. Anything beyond that is just instruction creep.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
But if you can think of a way to avoid having articles that close, without clumsiness, go for it. Like most questions, it's a balance between costs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the primary articles need a parenthetical Dab in the title. The Jumping the broom example works very well as is. It is, however, very useful to create those pages as redirects (which I see is already done in that example). Maybe that should be the guideline, because I suspect a lot of people don't bother to capitalize anything when searching. Keep in mind that people who type in Jumping the Broom, or any other capitalized title probably know they're looking for a proper name. And if they have their caps lock on, well, they probably deserve to go to the wrong page. LRT24 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also remember that someone coming in cold to Wikipedia shouldn't be expected to know when we use capitals and when we don't, just as some newspapers, magazines and books would capitalize Broom in an article or chapter about the custom while others wouldn't. Some reference works, of course, don't capitalize the first letter of 98% of the titles that aren't proper names, as Wikipedia does, e.g. they'd use "chrome" for the metal and Chrome for the web browser I'm using now. And if Jumping is capitalized, then there's no intuitive way of knowing if some distinction attaches to the capitalization of Broom. ¶ On the other hand, even experienced Wikipedians have no way of always knowing what to enter into those disambiguation parentheses (or knowing they exist for a particular title), as I found when trying to specify links to various Ulster politicians in editing an article about the May 5th elections: (politician), (Irish politician), (UK politician), (Northern Irish politician), (Northern Ireland politician), (Irish nationalist), etc. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

generally

Why must the page use wishy-washy language? If Article titles "prefers" something, this already gives latitude to editors. How exactly does "generally prefers" differ? Is there some great thirst for article titles that are not nouns or nominal groups? Where, please? Why don't we add "generally" all over the place, such as "titles are generally expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for to find the article", then? Tony (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with their removal. They add nothing at all.Rememberway (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
"Generally prefer" is deliberately wishy-washy. It is a concise way to say: "Very often we prefer X, but occasionally we actually don't prefer X (preferring Y or Z instead)." Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a non concise way of saying nothing useful whatever. All policies and all guidelines are shoulds, not laws that you have to follow. They are not musts. We don't need wishywashyness we need policies that are clear and unambiguous and easy to follow and that help build an encyclopedia.Rememberway (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else agree to their removal? I propose they be removed out of hand.Rememberway (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; Blueboar, if the policy wants to be that wishy-washy, it may as well say nothing on that matter. When is the "occasionally" (serious question: do you have some examples?). Surely one reason for all policy points is to set out patterns so that editors don't argue about them in particular articles. Tony (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Every time the desiderata disagree: UK is short and common, but it is not the natural name of the United Kingdom and (since it can mean the University of Kentucky), not as precise - and we don't refer to other countries by initials. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Few things are less useful than the habit of demanding that our policies say something specific and "enforceable" when a categorical statement would be simply wrong a significant proportion of the time. Tony, Wikipedia policy is not a set of laws which can be "violated," and need to be "enforced" – not to mention that rational real-world legislation often has weasel-words like "reasonable" or "excessive" too.

In this case, we have five principles, all of which have claims on our attention; sometimes (and much of the time when this page needs to be consulted) they disagree. When they disagree, some will be right, some will be wrong (or rather, less important in that instance). Therefore all of them are generally true; none of them is exactly true.

"I don't care what we demand as long as we demand something" is an avenue to bad policy. Wikipedia would work better if it were a banning offense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the five points were not uniform, I have substituted expected to. I still consider these arguments groundless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"Expected to" is a lot better than "generally". Tony (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
One never knows what will please people; the force of the policy is not changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
However, the 'generally' in WP:NOUN is still there. Given that there does not seem to be overall consensus to make any change, and given that the previous version was long standing for many years, I still intend to revert this unless there is further support from others for the current version.Rememberway (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
And it ought to be; for yet another example, touché is a participle, not a noun. If, instead of disrupting this policy in a solitary crusade, R would say which example brought him here, he might get sympathy; this will only earn disregard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not even an encyclopedia article. You're the one disrupting policies by systematically trying to water them down. The policy on policies and guidelines is that they're not invariant laws. This is your fundamental misunderstanding.Rememberway (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Dude, chill already. This isn't a contest to see who's view "wins". Why continue to try to stir the pot?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
No, he's failed to show consensus, so it's gone. Policies are maintained by consensus. The idea of going through the policies and adding 'generally' everywhere is a thoroughly bad idea that cannot be encouraged in any way.Rememberway (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
After thinking "what the F?" for a sec, I decided to actually look at your user page, at which everything suddenly came clear. This is the point where I say "happy editing" and exit stage left. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Whereas I prefer not to have single purpose accounts rewrite policy for their private and solitary purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you clearly prefer to edit war through non consensus changes even if as many people disagree with your change as agree with it. We don't vote, but you don't have even a majority, never mind consensus. Using the word 'generally' in WP:NOUN has 2 people for and 3 against. I asked if anybody else had an opinion, but nobody stood up at all. So it's gone. That's the way it's supposed to work in policy. Being bold and adding stuff is good, but getting consensus to allow it to remain is needed, and you've failed on that.Rememberway (talk)
  • I don't know why seven generallies have crept into the page. At least three are in clauses that already contain a "weakener" such as preferred. I intend to remove these redundant bits of fluff that have no place in good expression. Tony (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've reported Pmanderson for edit warring at WP:3RR. He doesn't seem to be following consensus in any way, shape or form. Although blueboar has supported him, nobody else has. I remind people that consensus is when everyone agrees. In fact many of the edits by Pmanderson and blueboar since I tried to add noun into nutshell seem to have been questioned by quite a few people, Dicklyon, you, me, Rrir and others on the policy page itself. In those circumstances reverting back to an earlier version is fair enough, but instead they've just edit warred controversial change upon controversial change. That has to stop.Rememberway (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
What we have here is a tug of war between two philosophical viewpoints... on one side are people who want to make WP:NOUN (and other sections of the policy) lean towards a strong "always" statement, and on the other side are people who want to make WP:NOUN lean towards a relatively weak "often" statement. The debate reflects the ongoing tensions at the MOS... Those leaning towards "always" see policy as being a statement of enforceable rules that all must abide by. Those leaning towards "often" see policy as being a statement of principles that are flexible enough to meet the needs of individual articles. The few of us who are debating can not achieve consensus, because we approach the problem with diametrically different goals. I would suggest that the best way to resolve this debate is to formulate an RFC and get a broader sense of community consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That is one issue, on which those who insist that policy is legislation are in fact acting contrary to policy. But this has more problems than the usual paradox; the "rule" does not describe consensus practice: touché is not a noun, and Try to Remember is a noun phrase only in Rememberway's imagination.
Most seriously, it is based on a non-consensus view of what article titles are. We should settle that by adding a negative sentence to the beginning of the policy, something like Wikipedia does not attempt to decide on the names of the subjects of its articles; the titles are convenient labels for the subject, sometimes descriptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I keep telling you, but you go deaf. 'Try to remember' is a proper noun. And you're both right and wrong that touché is not a noun. But in this context, you're wrong. Touché used as the title of an article is a noun, you're confusing the levels. A title is always a label, which makes a title a noun or noun phrase. The words that make up a noun phrase don't have to be nouns at all, particularly if they're quoted, as in 'try to remember'. But really none of this matters that much. Nearly all the articles in the Wikipedia have proper nouns for their title because they're people or places, and then there's songs, bands and literature as well, again proper nouns. Most of the remainder are things like 'astronomy', 'chemistry', 'running' etc. which are nouns. The rest are rare exceptions, and even then, the titles are still nouns in the sense that they're titles- all titles are treated as nouns in English.Rememberway (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, what we have here, is you two doing whatever the fuck you want to a policy page, even when you are a minority of two and then claiming that somebody else is non consensus. Non consensus means you don't make any changes at all, not carry on edit warring; which is what you bone heads are doing..Rememberway (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You claiming that it is based on a non-consensus view of what article titles are and touché is not a noun, and Try to Remember is a noun phrase only in Rememberway's imagination are just things you've invented to rationalise your continued edit warring of the policy when you are in a minority. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Say YES if you understand.Rememberway (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Right at the top of the policy it contains these words: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. How is it, Blueboar that you can possibly think that all policies are to be written so that they can be absolutely and exactly followed, and so that they must be equivocated to cover all cases 'flexibly', and Pmanderson how is that you think that your changes don't need to reflect consensus? You know, consensus, as in not just Blueboar agreeing? Neither of these positions make any sense at all. NONE AT ALL.Rememberway (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We're not deaf; we simply disagree with you.
In particular, the view that a Wikipedia article title "is always a noun phrase", even if (like touché) it isn't a noun, is both an odd view, and one that makes "use a noun phrase" utterly irrelevant to the purpose of this page: to advise on which string of words should be used for the title of any given article.
If you don't understand any of the answers you are getting, maybe you're asking the wrong question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

Rememberway's latest conribution contains:

Note that proper nouns such as names of quotations A rolling stone gathers no moss or titles of works 'Try to Remember' are nouns, even if they contain no noun words.

That's a claim of fact; I don't believe it. Let's have a citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rememberway, do I remember correctly from your previous accounts that you are a native German speaker?
I ask, because what's obviously a noun phrase in German is not obviously a noun phrase in English. We need this to be useful to English speakers, not to German speakers or grammar mavens.
And, PMA, it's technically correct: the name for anything is always technically a noun. (Of course, in one sense, that means that no matter what you put in the article title, it magically becomes a noun by virtue of being the name for the article: "To run is our article on running.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That's true, and that's why this previously said 'article titles should be nouns' because they always are. There is the slight catch though that the noun has to refer to the article topic. You can't just stick a title there and talk about something else. And we don't quote in titles which complicates things enormously. So really fuck should be "fuck" since we're talking about the title word, not sex; the title is really the term "fuck", rather than sex, and in English proper nouns are nearly always quoted for similar reasons, but not in Wikipedia's titles, that's why there's this difference.Rememberway (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It's all ridiculously geeky stuff. But it boils down to just 'use nouns'. If you just do that nothing goes wrong. The problem we have is that Pmanderson doesn't seem to get any of this, and he also doesn't get that he doesn't get it.Rememberway (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I was curious about that as well. More importantly though, this is the sort of bad policy that is a side effect of adversarial development. There's some good that comes from the adversarial approach as well, but this sort of thing is definitely an example of how the adversarial approach can hurt.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely I'm not German I don't know where you got that from, I speak native English.Rememberway (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know where I got that idea from, either.
But the fact is that the typical English speaker does not interpret the title Try to Remember as a noun phrase, whereas grammar mavens and people used to heavily declined languages typically would. So if we put the technically correct statement in this policy, we are both confusing our typical reader (the person who thinks "try to remember" is a verb) and making the advice less useful (the person who thinks that he can use anything he wants, since the act of using the words as the name of the article makes those words a noun). As a result, while it is True™, I think the proposed changes are unhelpful—and since the purpose of a policy page is to be helpful, I believe we should not make these changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, please be careful here, 'Try to remember' is a proper noun. It's not being used as a term in the way you're implying at all. Song titles, can apparently be any part of speech at all, but really, they're proper nouns.; they're the name of the song!.Rememberway (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
'Try to remember' is a proper noun. But which word are you claiming is a noun word? It's not 'try' that's a verb. It's not 'is'. That's the verb to be. 'Remember' is a verb also. Which word is supposed to be a noun? None of them are. None of them act as nouns either. And yet the phrase is a proper noun. You added that example to the policy. Did you even bother reading it?Rememberway (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I claimed, and still claim, that none of them is a noun. That's why, although "Try to Remember", so capitalized, is a proper name, it is not a proper noun. On the other hand, touché is neither; it's a participle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Then we have something like Surrender - which is both a verb (to surrender) and a noun (a surrender) - and is (quite appropriately) discussed in terms of both meanings in the context of our article. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's get our terminology correct. Previously Rememberway argued "Try to Remember" and the like are noun phrases. They're not, really; a noun phrase consists of a noun plus modifiers (or a pronoun standing in for a noun plus modifiers.) Now he's shifted to say that they are proper names. This is correct; it's a name for a distinct entity (a particular song). Proper names are nouns and are always acceptable as article titles.

It gets a little dodgier - slightly - for words, phrases, proverbs, etc. A rolling stone gathers no moss and gay are not really proper names, and when used in a sentence they are not nouns. However, by the use-mention distinction, when you mention them in a sentence as opposed to using them, they function as nouns as they are the subject of the sentence. They can be presented as "'A rolling stone gathers no moss' is a proverb..." and "'Gay' is a term"; as such they are also appropriate article titles.
As I said before, the purpose of this policy point is to say that articles should be presented in a particular way. We don't use verbs-as-verbs ("To swim is to move the body through water") or adjectives-as-adjectives ("Red objects reflect a particular wavelength of light"), we use noun constructions. "Try to remember" and "gay" can be presented in that type of construction. That's what the policy is intended to say, and whether we consciously pick up on it, the vastest majority of Wikipedia articles follow suit.--Cúchullain t/c 14:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it would probably help to state that (somewhat limited) motive with the guidance; that might deter future assertions that this is some sort of Cosmic Truth, and correct those, like me, who had always taken it as a reasonable, but arbitrary, choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup. That's it. You get it Cuchullain.Rememberway (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
OTOH:
 'although "Try to Remember", so capitalized, is a proper name, it is not a proper noun'  - Pmanderson
It just says it all.
Perhaps it would be too much to ask that people editing the WP:NOUN policy be restricted to people that actually know what a noun is? It seems that we would be likely to get a lot less problems. It seems that Pmanderson doesn't know what a noun is, so he equivocates the policy when there's absolutely no point, and holds nouns up as counterexamples of nouns while doing it. This kind of thing can only get Wikipedia a bad name.Rememberway (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yws, by all means. Let Rememberway say which of Try or and or Remember he thinks are nouns, and then apply his proposal to himself.
But anybody who's actually interested in this will be fascinated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touché (2nd nomination), instigated by - guess who? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, this has got to be the first time Rememberway and I have agreed on something ;) At any rate this has gotten so confusing that it's hard to tell what's going on, and nearly impossible to tell what the consensus is. I'm glad it's been protected. I think we'd all do well not to think of whatever's there as the "right" version, and to make proposals for wording changes or corrections here on the talk page.Cúchullain t/c 13:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems in the lead: some queries

Here's the lead as it is now:

This page describes Wikipedia's policy on choosing article titles.<ref>'''Article title''': the part of the [[URL]] that also appears as a large bold heading above the editable text of an article.</ref> It is supplemented and explained by guidelines linked to this policy (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view.
An article title is intended to label the article conveniently, and distinguish it from other articles; it need not be the name of the subject. Wikipedia's design makes it impossible for different articles to have the same title. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable.
For information on the procedure for renaming an article see Help:Moving a page, and Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Three queries:

  1. The footnote: first, does the term "article titles" really need to be defined in this context? Who is doubting what it means? Do we need to bother visitors with looking down to the bottom at this point? Second, I'm confused ... the URL often/usually contains things_like_underscores as well, and you have to hunt for this article title thing within it. Let's try replacing the weird bit of the footnote with something clearer: Article title: "the part of the URL that also the text that appears as a large bold heading above the editable text of an article." Now I'm wondering why we even need the other bit?
  2. "It is supplemented and explained by guidelines linked to this policy (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies"—right, so WP:TITLE doesn't need to be interpreted in relation to other policies? That's the logical implication of the current wording.
  3. "An article title is intended to label the article conveniently, and distinguish it from other articles"—Nice to intend, but that doesn't mean we achieve it: the road to hell is paved with ...? So, "An article title is intended to should label the article conveniently and distinguish it from other articles." I'm still unsure about "conveniently": for the convenience of editors, or readers, or both? What is an inconvenient title? Tony (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Re the first query... we added this due to confusion... people thinking that the Article title also included the bolded text in the first sentence of the lede. While it is common for the opening sentence to repeat the title, this is not mandatory, and the text can be different. Also, defining what we mean by "title" helps clarify that the "title of the article" is not necessarily the same thing as the "name of the subject". Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with losing the "part of the URL" bit, though - often it isn't (exactly) part of the URL, particularly if there are spaces or special characters involved.--Kotniski (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"Represented in the URL" would be better; but we must, somewhere early, make the point that the URL is formed from the article title, and is the reason that no two titles can be identical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Re the second query... This is referring to the subject specific naming conventions, and highlights that they have to be interpreted in conjunction with other policies and guidelines. I don't see it as implying that this policy is exempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)
Again, like much of Wikipedia space, this is a reaction to actual folly; that our Naming Conventions are laws which must be followed to the letter, even when the result is unintended and harmful. We don't know anybody like that, do we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Re the third: both readers and editors will find United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a somewhat inconvenient title. If we were to accept what often seems tempting, and use numbers as our titles and URLs, "804705702-8" would be an extremely inconvenient title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The original mile-long title for Gulliver's Travels is IMO inconvenient. An article title that required me to type Chinese characters would also count as inconvenient in my books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Query 1: So given comments by Bluboar, PMA and others, can we drop the URL bit and retain this? "An article title appears as a large bold heading above the editable text of an article."? I can't imagine anything clearer, and the URL bit made it clunky and unclear. Why do we need to fuddle the visitor with talk about URLs to justify the need for article titles not to be duplicates? Who would disagree with that? Supplementary suggestion: could we integrate that shorter glossing into the main text rather than footnoting it?
  • Query 2: For logic, I think it needs three words added: "It is supplemented and explained by guidelines linked to this policy (see the box to the right), which,along with this policy, should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies".
  • Query 3: I'm reading this from a newcomer's perspective. What is convenient and inconvenient? Mr Anderson's comment clarifies that length and recognisability are the keys. But they are covered immediately below in specific terms. I don't believe convenience conveys anything useful to editors that is not already plain as day in the five principles. Why not make it more concise here, since we know an article title is a label for an article? "An article title is a convenient label for the article, which distinguishes it from other articles. Tony (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
On Query 1... I have no problem omitting the bit about the URL... especially since we have a nice image to make clear what we are talking about.
On query 2... Sounds reasonable.
Still thinking about the third Query Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • On query 3: that paragraph is a recent addition intended to summarize the five principles, because somebody objected that the lead should say something about what a good article title is. It therefore is intended to reach the audience that hasn't gotten to the five principles yet. I thought the objection well taken, but we can always merge the principles back into the lead, by taking out their header. That would make a long lead, and mean no section header for them, but those are minor problems. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean about Q3, and the remaining fragment is now a bit stubby. That para does indeed thrust the readers downward by referring specifically to the five principles. Better to get to it more quickly without the confusing "convenient"? Also, the first sentence seems to be more linked with the third sentence, so perhaps a rearrangement is needed. And I'm unsure whether A title need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject. fits into that para. How is this?

"Wikipedia's design requires an article title must be unique to distinguish it from other titles. A title need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, and be short, natural, and recognizable. Tony (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd recorder this; in practice, uniqueness is a constraint, and is rarely the central issue.
Article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. A title need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject. Wikipedia's design requires each article title to be unique. When there are multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, and be short, natural, and recognizable.
Reader convenience is the justification, as far as I can see, for the principles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
On point #1, the title also appears in the title bar of the browser. If you look at the explanatory image, you'll see that it takes two red ovals to identify the locations of the article title.
The URL is (exactly) why we not only "do not" but "can not" have articles with identical titles. The article title is used to form the URL. Other software uses a different approach, and therefore can have articles with identical titles. You and I might think it undesirable to use such a (mis)feature, but it is not unreasonable of us to indicate how we use the title and why titles cannot (as opposed to "should not") be identical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well... if we define "title" as we in fact do here - as the big text that comes at the top of the article - then it's not strictly true that titles cannot be identical. By playing fancy tricks with DISPLAYTITLE you can hide part of the title to make it look identical to another one. (And we could also ask for the software to be configured to allow displayed titles to be completely independent of the stored title - that just requires changing a parameter.) So in fact the uniqueness requirement is our choice, rather than a software imposition. --Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Or rather, we do not choose to evade the imposition made by the software; but that is covered by the footnote, which should stay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an addition of another caveat in Google Books search: make sure that the term in question is sought in reasonably recent books. The reason is that Google&Co OCRed a huge number so-old-as-out-of-copyright books, which may sometimes totally skew the statistics on terminology. Like, in honor of my favorite beer:-):: Plzeň: 87,700 results against Pilsen: 209,000 results, Kaligelos (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of that is the detail that Pilsen and Pilsner continue to be English terms for the town and the beer, much to the disappointment of Czech editors; but the caveat is well taken, and it is mentioned in WP:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Italic titles

As expected, opening the floodgates allowing italics in article titles has produced cases of overuse. Many titles that are nominally about works whose titles would be italicized (like newspapers, for instance), are now entirely italicized, even if the article title includes words that are not part of the work's title. I never understood why the encyclopedia had to be complicated in this way for an extremely minor formatting benefit. Powers T 01:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(If the benefit is extremely minor, then the problem you refer to must be extremely minor as well...) Can you give some examples? Maybe there's an infobox template or something behaving incorrectly.--Kotniski (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Rochester Times-Union. Powers T 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The place to discuss this is probably Template talk:Italic title, which needs an argument to unitalicize part of the title. But you can always force it with the magic word DISPLAYTITLE; I've done that.
I agree that we should be using "Rochester Times-Union" as our title; Times-Union is ambiguous, and "Rochester" is the natural disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
But that kinda illustrates my point: why go through all that trouble just to get the title italicized correctly, when plaintext worked just fine for years? Powers T 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not really that much trouble, and it makes it work just a little bit finer. If you don't consider it worth your trouble, no-one's forcing you.--Kotniski (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a fair bit of trouble when I had to track down a) why the title was italicized in the first place, and b) how to stop it. Then I had to propose the change on the talk page, then figure out how to actually make the change -- and that was just to revert it back to the plaintext formatting. Now to get every newspaper article in the "preferred" italicized format, someone's gotta go through and add a DISPLAYTITLE for all multi-hundred articles on newspapers in the encyclopedia. Not immediately, no, but eventually -- that's a fair bit of work, don't you think? Powers T 18:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't the infobox coding trick do most of them automatically?--Kotniski (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently not; see Chicago Tribune (which should be italicized completely). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see the automatic italicizing has been disabled in Template:Infobox Newspaper. Bizarrely, by the same user who was just complaining about the amount of work it would take to do them all manually... Strange place, Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sarcasm. Yes, I disabled it because there was no way to make it work for all newspaper articles. That part was non-trivial but not particularly difficult (took me several minutes to figure out how it worked). The hard part is then going through all of the newspaper articles and making them "look pretty" with proper italicization. Powers T 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well we wouldn't have to do that if you hadn't disabled it - we would just have to handle the minority of articles like Rochester Times-Union which the infobox doesn't get right - and which aren't made right by the disabling, either, so I don't really see what purpose it serves.--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
At the time, I had no idea how to 'fix' the italicization without removing it entirely. So removing it -- restoring the titles to the way they have been for 95% of the encyclopedia's history -- seemed a far better option than leaving the italicization in place to be misleading. Powers T 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not with the italicization, but with the article title. if the Rochester Times-Union is actually the Times-Union, then the article should be at Times-Union (Rochester) (displayed as Times-Union (Rochester)), just like e.g. the Times Union (Albany) is. Fram (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous; there's no policy favoring parenthetical disambiguation over the more natural disambiguation used in everyday speech and writing. Powers T 13:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, this policy has long been the other way:If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead of parentheses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CWenger, 3 June 2011

Can somebody add a hanging hyphen after Latin in the "Foreign names and anglicization" section?

For Latin- or Greek-derived words, use e or ae/oe, depending on modern usage and the national variety of English used in the article.

Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Hadal (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes

If anyone doesn't know, there's a comprehensive RfC on hyphen and dash use happening at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting. Since this is likely to affect article titles as well, I draw it to people's attention.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No naming convention on Derogatory Slang

There was a referal to this page and a cursory remark that unmitigated titling of articles with derogatory slang was supposedly "in line with" naming conventions. However, it does not seem that there are any for this type of entry.

Those articles are really articles about words and rarely crop up. But when they do, they trash Wikipedia's reputation. WP should IMHO rectify this reprehensible situation by adopting a naming convention which would go on this page, to wit:

The proposal as it now standsIt is believed that the goals of WMF are undermined by loss of editors and readers, and loss of recommendations by academic faculty, because Wikpedia naming conventions depart dramatically from general English-speaking literate usage by allowing derogatory slang words as encyclopedia article titles. The proposal has a maximum and minimum, to wit: minimally, that the convention be that article titles be in this form:

Expletive (Slang) or

Expletive (Slang word) Maximally, the proposal is that the convention be

Expletive (Derogatory slang) or

Expletive (Prejudicial slang) Note that this is not a proposal to censor or ban the content of such articles but merely an editorial policy for naming them.


The formal RFC is for better or for worse situated on this page here. Bard गीता 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First... A reminder that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We are not supposed to have articles about words... instead, we are supposed to have articles that are about the concepts and acts that the words describe. For example, the article on Shit should be an article about fecal matter, and not about the word "shit" (I realize that this isn't the case ... I am saying that it should be).
Also, how many articles are we really talking about? This strikes me as being instruction creep... something that (at most) should be handled through a subject specific guideline, and not really worth mentioning at the policy level. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason we shouldn't have articles about words if there is significant sourced information about them that goes beyond the scope of a typical dictionary entry. And if an article is about a word, I don't see any reason why that word shouldn't be used as the title (unless it needs disambiguating). Though it might be good to have some consistent method (I'm not sure what; perhaps quotes) for making a title show that the article is about the word or phrase rather than the thing it refers to.--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It's broadly accepted that articles on words are suitable subjects for articles if they meet the inclusion criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources beyond dictionary definitions, etc) and have encyclopedic coverage. To the original proposal, there's no reason at all that the words shouldn't be the title, even if they are considered an expletive. If they need disambiguation that's another story, but we don't use parentheses as a way of "flagging" titles.
It is general practice that words being discussed as words are made distinct from the sentence by quotation marks or italics. Within the articles the words should be set apart in this way. If we need any kind of stated convention, this would be a big one.Cúchullain t/c 13:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That is WP:MOS (which recommends italics for single words). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RUS

I have started this RfC to determine whether or not the Romanization of Russian guideline actually reflects consensus. Comments there would be greatly appreciated; thanks. Mlm42 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Briefly: No. It violates clear policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC proposal

OK, I've had it with this user. The list so far is edit warring, massive numbers of tendentious edits, subject line insults, AFD tag blanking, various arguments that I don't think even he believes that black is white. I'm pretty sure there's quite a few bad faiths as well.

So I intend to create an RFC on him, do I have anyone that will second the RFC?Rememberway (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If somebody else wants to take over objecting to Rememberway's WP:FRINGE view on the status of WP:NOUN, that's fine by me. If somebody wants to agree with him, and make a better case for "Article titles are always and without exception nouns", that's fine too.
But in the meantime, we have a solitary editor who would very much like to have his pet theory written into policy, preferably into the nutshell. We've discussed this at #WP:NOUN and nutshell, and he has a notable absence of agreement.
Who should have an RFC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
At this point I'd certainly support an "interaction ban" for the two of you, and I'd probably even support some sort of a "Wikipedia namespace ban". I don't see the combative approach that both of you tend towards as being constructive. It doesn't matter who believes what, or who started what. It takes two to tango.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Look, Ohms, in all seriousness, if somebody doesn't actually know what a noun is, and he's edit warring the WP:NOUN policy, and messing it up, what am I supposed to do? Read this: although "Try to Remember", so capitalized, is a proper name, it is not a proper noun - Pmanderson
A name that's not a proper noun? Yes, he's actually saying that a name ...is not a noun.Rememberway (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Is that, or is that not a totally fundamental misunderstanding on his part? And he's written this into the policy. And he's edit warring to keep it there.Rememberway (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
None of that matters since you've both acted poorly during this whole thing. This right here is a perfect example of the poor behavior that's been exhibited throughout. You seemingly want some sort of acknowledgement that you're right... that you've won. I don't care what other people do here, but I'm not going to play your game. PMA seems to be doing the same thing, and so he get's the same treatment here. You've both lost my support days ago, and the damage that this sort of adversarial debate can cause is exemplified now in the overly detailed explanation at WP:NOUN. I'm willing to work with either or both of you, but you both drive people away with the adversarial attitudes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Look, all I know is that Pmanderson and Blueboar have been edit warring the policy away from what it has said for 3 years, without getting consensus first, and as it stands it has at least one obviously wrong thing in it. I put it to you that you reverting it back to what it said before they started hacking on it is at least an unarguably consensus position that it has had for 3 years. If they want to change it, they need to discuss it like sensible people on this page, rather than revert warring to what is obviously not a consensus position. That's not me trying to get the old version back, that's me trying, in good faith, to come up with a sensible course of action, while leaving the policy in a reasonable state in the meantime, and there's no guarantee that after it was discussed it wouldn't change in ways I wouldn't necessarily like.Rememberway (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Errr, weren't you topic banned just last year for six months from any edits on policies and guidelines related to words-as-articles? Discussion will do little good if you continue your behavior of "stridently pushing a very restrictive and not widely-held view with respect to the inclusion of words-as-articles". --NeilN talk to me 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there's some level of confusion about the wording. That's fair, the wording can be tweaked to indicate what the policy point is really getting at. But the back-and-forth reverting isn't going to help.Cúchullain t/c 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In my view the confusion comes from the fact that we've essentially been arguing about the wording here from within a vacuum. Unless I've missed it, noone has provided any concrete examples supporting their position... well, I take that back slightly, since there were links added to a couple of example articles. Still, the point remains that there's been no real evidence given. There's been no broad view analysis, demonstrating a need for change at all. I'm still puzzled about what brought up the need to attempt to highlight WP:NOUN in the nutshell, which is what kicked off this brouhaha in the first place. I don't understand why this is important enough to make it worth pursuing. What the hell is the argument about, now?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The argument's more about changes to the "Use nouns" section at this point. I think it can be summed up into two points: (1) there's no consensus that using nouns should to be mentioned in the nutshell summary, and (2) the edit warring has made it entirely unclear what the consensus is regarding the wording in the "Use nouns" section.
It's the second point that we need to sort out here on the talk page. Given that virtually every article title that anyone can find functions in the noun construction (whether or not the words in the titles are themselves nouns), the point obviously has very wide acceptance in general practice. However, as the wording in the policy point clearly confuses some people, it can be tweaked.Cúchullain t/c 18:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The default consensus is always the long standing text. In this case it has been there for 3 years, and any changes from that have completely failed to reach consensus.Rememberway (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This could have been put more concisely: "I support what I claim to be the long-standing text; nobody else does; therefore it must stay." What policy actually says, however, is Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to subject

I'm a Latinist; to me, nouns are a formal category. It is not the case that all our article titles do, or should, contain members of that category.
Treating nouns as a functional category has two opposing problems:
  • Any phrase whatsoever can become a functional noun, in such constructions as "The phrase hard to remember is...", "Hopefully is an adverb which arouses much controversy..." If read as intended, it offers no guidance.
  • However, wikignomes will understand "Use only nouns" or equivalent language, as forbidding all phrases which do not include formal nouns, such as Try to Remember, although that is the name of the song.
I therefore support Article titles usually or normally use nouns or noun phrases; I will accept any reasonable variant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Righhhhht. Wikignomes now? We had the 'proper names are not nouns' and now there's gnomes happily gambling through the wiki? Fortunately these wikignomes get confused ever so easily, forcing us to change the policy in the way you want. How very convenient! Has anyone else seen these gnomes?Rememberway (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Those who want to change how Wikipedia acts really should learn how it does things now. Like much Wikipedia jargon, WP:WikiGnomes began as a joke, but it is now the usual term for editors who "work behind the scenes of a wiki, tying up little loose ends and making things run more smoothly". How much they add to the encyclopedia is a question on which reasonable editors differ, but policies which ignore their existence are ill-fated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but a Pmanderson wikignome is a fictitious stereotype you've created to bolster your weird ideas that proper nouns are not nouns.Rememberway (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
{{citation needed}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
However, wikignomes will understand "Use only nouns" or equivalent language, as forbidding all phrases which do not include formal nouns, such as Try to Remember, although that is the name of the song. [citation needed] Rememberway (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna check (back) out of participating in the Wikipedia namespace for a while (it's sucking up waaaayyy too much of my time, in my opinion), but I wanted to say that I basically agree with the above. I like the "normally use nouns" construct, since I think that "normally" is a better description than "usually"... the tone is better, or something. I don't know. The important thing to me is to provide a bit of wiggle room. I believe that the whole idea of advocating for language such as "Article titles must be nouns of noun phrases" is completely antithetical to the Wikipedia culture. I'd like us to make firmer recommendations then we currently seem to do, but I don't want to see Wikipedia policy and guidelines turn into a rulebook. Generally, the majority wouldn't follow a rulebook regardless. That's what I'd like my contribution to entail (and incidentally, this is applicable to the dash issue as well, as a general principle).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
We already say that at the very top of every policy though: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Are we seriously supposing that it is necessary to add 'should normally' to every individual sentence as well?Rememberway (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that we wikignomes (and I proudly include myself in that term), too often don't see how our work gets misused out there at the article level, when it goes beyond the pages of policy... All too often, editors who are involved in conflicts focus on the specific wording of specific phrases of policy... which they take out of context to to support legalistic "letter of the law" arguments. This is a form of Wikilawyering, and is highly discouraged... it is also epidemic. We don't want to write policy in ways that encourage this behavior. We want to write policy that makes editors think about the intent of the policy and focus on the principles that lie behind it rather than the narrow wording. This is why we liberally sprinkle hedge terms like "generally", "normally" and "usually" throughout our policy pages... to remind editors that there are very few policy provisions that are clear cut "Must do... Always... This means you" rules. It also means that when they come across a provision that is not hedged, it stands out as being one of those rare clear cut provisions.
Telling people that we generally (or usually, or normally) use nouns in our titles is a necessary hedge - to prevent WP:NOUN from being misused by people who only look at the narrow wording (and don't bother to think about the broader intent of the policy). Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Provide an unequivocal example.Rememberway (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my agreement with PMA's analysis at the top of this subthread - that's exactly how I see it, and I'm not sure what the problem or objection is (or even if there is one) regarding the current wording. --Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

One question is how you can state that proper nouns are 'major exceptions' to using nouns (???).
And even worse is how it is that titles are 'normally preferred' to be nouns, which seems to imply to me as a user that you can arbitrarily just decide to prefer to do something else at whim pretty much; whereas in reality, is it not the case that not using a noun is something you should never do unless you have no other sensible choice?Rememberway (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I mean that is how it is isn't it really? He's talking of preference, but really, it's not a question of preference for the reader of the policy; you should only be forced into a non noun by the circumstances. Preference is the wrong word.Rememberway (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so something like Article titles usually or normally use nouns or noun phrases, as PMA himself suggests above.--Kotniski (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"usually use" or "normally use" are both acceptable to me. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Usually or normally (to me at least) means (say) 95% of the time. Aren't we then saying that 5% of the article names don't have to be nouns?Rememberway (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Something more like 'virtually all use" is the reality.Rememberway (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And it's not a question of forcing people to do something, it's more that if it's not a noun, they've very probably done something wrong when writing the article or choosing the title.Rememberway (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see much point in continuing this conversation. There is currently no consensus for any changes, and I do not think that any reasonable person could possibly pretend that there is consensus for Rememberway's changes in particular. We can stop beating this horse any time now, because no matter how many more sentences we post to this page, the outcome isn't going to change. From here, it's just a matter of wasting your time in accomplishing nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The only fair way to stop is to revert this section back to the 11th May version, which has been there for 3 years, and has presumed consensus.Rememberway (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I would rather have something that actually does have consensus (which doesn't necessarily require that no-one disagrees), than something that we might assume had consensus at some time in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So would I, but at the moment we definitely don't have it, and we at least did have it; reverting it to the earlier version is the best of a bad job. The thing is that there's been a series of really serious breaches of the consensus guidelines on this policy page. Policy pages are supposed to be consensus at essentially all times, but some of Pmanderson's edits have been reverted at least 6 times. The second revert is non consensus; the 6th one is a joke. Nobody gets to do that with any policy page I have anything to do with (not even me!), I don't care whether it's 3RR or not, that stops right now. Consensus is when everyone agrees, not voting, everyone agrees, not when people get bored of dealing with extended edit wars, everyone agrees.Rememberway (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This from the person who has reverted more often than I have... But he really should look up WP:3RR and see what it says; responding to a single purpose account six times over twelve days is no violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And I'm honestly not wedded to the legacy text of WP:NOUN either, it's time has come, but we need to revert to it, and work from there. There doesn't seem to be any other choice. When this kind of bad stuff goes down, is when we have to follow the policies. Not lip service to bits of the policies, actually following the full intent of the policies.Rememberway (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone NOT think that following the Wikipedia's policies is a good idea?Rememberway (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You are correct that Consensus is not based on a majority in a vote count... however, it does not require unanimity either. Consensus does not require that everyone agrees. Blueboar (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You're already quibbling about what the policy says. That's not the way this goes. I quote: Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. and Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, so in the ideal case it does. I am completely unconvinced at this time that this is not the ideal case; and I'm equally convinced that no more edit warring is to occur; all changes require clear consensus; and any edit by anyone that does not have clear consensus must be reverted and moved to the talk page, where it will be discussed. Right?Rememberway (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And equally, I don't want anyone to get the idea that this is some kind of bad faith attempt to block changes. You are expected to assume good faith, because that is also a policy. (If it becomes clear that somebody really isn't following good faith, we'll get the admins.)Rememberway (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it odd that the everyone (except Rememberway) seems to have no problem with adding modifiers like "generally", "usually" or "normally".... and yet he/she is the one lecturing us on consensus? While Rememberway's continued opposition means we don't have unanimity... I think we do have a fairly clear idea of where consensus lies. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed - and if this goes on much longer, we should ask an admin whether we are correct in observing bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You could try that, but the admin I talked to indicated that you were likely to get blocked at the drop of a hat; and I've seen your edit war block log... I've never seen anyone blocked that often before, and the blocks are getting more frequent. You're running on borrowed time mate. You do not, in fact have any choice but to seek and follow consensus.Rememberway (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Point of fact I wasn't the only person to revert those, but in any case, which part of Assume Good Faith and obtain Consensus for all changes do you not understand? You are expected, in Wikipedia, to make a good faith attempt to achieve consensus. If I don't like a change, it's not consensus, if Dicklyon doesn't like a change, it's not consensus, if Pmanderson doesn't like a change it's not consensus and it doesn't go in. etc. etc. We have to find positions that everyone can get behind, particularly in policies.Rememberway (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity; we do not have the liberum veto, which destroyed Poland. There are two options here: either the view which everyone but Rememberway supports is consensus, or there is none. The first case is the present text; the second choice implies silence on the subject at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, according to the policy, Consensus in Wikipedia's policies is essentially unanimity, and you have to take into account all reasonable concerns. This is not a majority voting system here, you have to follow the core policies, and seek consensus, or you will get blocked.Rememberway (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful on two grounds.
  • Wikipedian consensus is never essentially unanimity (I observe that Rememberway has not managed to cite an actual policy which says so).
  • Even more importantly, what Rememberway demands that we do (on pain of blocking) ignores the concerns of everybody but - by some strange coincidence - Rememberway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policy than on other kinds of pages. in conjunction with while Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections So it's pretty clear you're supposed to shoot for unanimity particularly on policy pages. It's not necessarily that, but it's especially important there and you're told to try to get it. And it's very clear that revert warring as you've been doing pmanderson is really not on.Rememberway (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
"Ideally", there would be unanimous agreement. There, as on this page, we are rarely in the ideal world, and we must make provisions for what happens when there is not unanimity.The idea that one noisy editor can insist on preserving text which is demonstrably not consensus is our fundamental flaw, encouraging the introduction and maintenance of non-consensus opinions in Wikipedia space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
As to your second point, that seems to be a misrepresentation as I've stated several times above that I am of course held to this every bit as much.Rememberway (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Except that you claim that you are not held by it; because you claim that your pet text is "long-standing" and must be preserved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have claimed nothing of the kind. That's a deliberate, bad faith, misrepresentation. -Rememberway (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been traveling and haven't followed all the details, but I support the idea that we should roll back to the stable version and not make changes until we have consensus. I don't think there's a hint of consensus that adding "generally" is an improvement, or that weirdly punctuated non-parallel summaries like "Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable" can be tolerated in the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One person making a lot of noise is not a reason to conclude that we don't have consensus. --Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the current version of WP:NOUN is much closer than the previous version.Cúchullain t/c 13:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
If indeed we didn't have consensus, then we should be silent on the subject. I don't think that's true; and I join the arguments that normally is useful and accurate; but if anyfody rpefers silence, that would be acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with Dicklyon. -Rememberway (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Then the three of you, having presented no grounds for his false claim of fact, should be ignored together. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there actually some substantial disagreement here - an article that some people think should be titled using a noun while others think it should not be - or are we just talking about how best to describe our practices? I can't really see why this issue should have developed into a big and ugly dispute.--Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems that any disagreement between PMAnderson and Rememberway will end up developing into a big ugly dispute. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not suffer bullies gladly. Perhaps we should let some editors, who don't care what "rule" they're "enforcing" as long as there is a rule they can "enforce", walk all over our policies; but I do not believe this. If somebody can come up with a better way to discourage such contributors from doing harm, I will follow their lead. For my part, I believe that Wikipedia would have a great deal less strife if half-a-dozen bullies were banned from WP-space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a substantive disagreement, however.
  1. Rememberway has a view of "nouns", which is much broader than that of the rest of us. There seems to be little agreement on this, and no agreement that adopting it is expedient.
  2. Rememberway has insisted, therefore, that this policy require that all titles all be "nouns" in his sense. I see nobody agreeing with him on this.
  3. Such a rule will be read to forbid article titles which even he agrees should be valid. This is the principal objection to his continual reverts; he ignores it.
  4. I see no grammatical phrase, and few ungrammatical ones, which his rule, as he means it, would exclude. If this is not so, he should make clearer what he would exclude, and we could see if we could come up with some intelligible way to have that effect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
All I see is someone who has been trying to edit war through non consensus changes, and it's not just me that's been reverting them or complaining about them. But that's OK, anyone that disagrees with you is 'bullying', 'not supported by anyone' (even if there's a list of 4 people above that support a revert and far less that don't), but fine, just keep edit warring, and I'm sure it will be OK. Tell me, how long have you spent blocked in the last year for edit warring? -Rememberway (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say, titles are generally names or noun phrases? That would cover "Try to Remember", which is a name but not a noun phrase. (Though we'd need to explain that a simple noun is a (minimal) noun phrase.) —Nah, that still leaves out quotations. I see nothing wrong with the current wording,[3] which IMO captures things just fine. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day, article titles are supposed to be a name of the topic. Names are (of course) always nouns. So it's doubly nonsensical to talk about 'generally' and 'major exceptions'. Whatever the title is, it's always taken as a name and a noun. There are no exceptions. It's actually logically impossible to have an exception. -Rememberway (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
If that were so, we wouldn't need to include the "nouns" paragraph in the policy at all. (But we do, because it is in fact saying something.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Titles are not always names... sometimes they are descriptions. While descriptive titles are often presented in noun form (and arguably best when presented in noun form), they are not always presented in noun form. We need to hedge the statement with words like "normally", "generally", etc to account for and allow non-noun descriptive titles. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Descriptive titles are always noun phrases, aren't they? (Or am I overlooking something?)--Kotniski (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". - Station1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that isn't what I would call a "descriptive title" - I understand that phrase to mean a title like "Criticisms of X", "History of Y", "List of Z", which describes the topic of the article, but doesn't name a concrete thing which is the subject of the article.--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Is that's not a name of that topic? Quoting part of a passage is normally considered to be a valid name of a piece of writing. For example if I was writing about the politics behind the moon landings in a magazine I could call it "We choose to go to the moon." and that name would usually be acceptable, although other names could be chosen for stylistic reasons. -Rememberway (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
At the end of the day, article titles are not required to be a name of the subject. That's why this page was moved from WP:Naming Conventions to WP:Article titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Titles are always names, even from the definition of the word 'title' e.g. Dictionary.com says:
the distinguishing name of a book, poem, picture, piece of music, or the like. -Rememberway (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The title we choose becomes the "name" of our article, yes. But it doesn't have to be the name of anything else (although in most cases it is). I really don't see what the argument is about here.--Kotniski (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, if titles aren't necessarily nouns, where are the reliable sources that say that they aren't necessarily? I've just giving you the dictionary reference that says they are nouns. It's not like the Wikipedia invented the idea of titles. -Rememberway (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Pmanderson has been repeatedly spamming weasel words throughout this policy, and trying to edit war them in, starting with this one. It's not any better here than anywhere else. All titles/names are nouns. -Rememberway (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ich bin ein Berliner is not a noun (it is an entire sentence) ... Don't ask, don't tell is not a noun (it is a verbal command, an injunction, commonly used in context as a way to summarize and describe the provisions of a federal law). Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
When used as a name rather than used in a sentence, they function as a noun. Additionally, when a word or phrase is mentioned as a word or phrase, rather than used in a sentence, it functions as a noun. It's basic grammar.Cúchullain t/c 13:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a sucker born every minute isn't used as a name. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said, when you mention a phrase as a phrase, rather than using it in a sentence, it functions as a noun (at least they can). In the sentence "'There's a sucker born every minute' is a phrase", the phrase is the subject of the sentence, and is functioning as a noun.--Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Go back to the top of this subthread and note the difference between "functional nouns" and "formal nouns". Obviously every title will be (potentially) a functional noun, because any group of words can function as a noun, but that doesn't tell us anything. All we are saying here is that most titles have the form of nouns (or noun phrases), but for various reasons a minority of them don't.--Kotniski (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we agree on the object of the policy point. Articles are formatted with a noun construction, rather than verb, adjective, etc. constructions. That's really it. Let me put it this way. There are many articles that don't have "formal" nouns in the title, but virtually none that don't use a noun construction.Cúchullain t/c 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly... functionally anything we choose to use as a title becomes a noun (as long as we use it as the subject of our opening sentence) ... By Cuchullian and Rememberway's lodic we could have an article entitled To swim (which I hope we would all agree is a verb), as long as the first sentence of the lede was: "To swim is a verb indicating movement while immersed in water." (after all... the words "to swim" are functioning as the subject of that sentence, and thus acting as a noun in the context of that sentence). However, the obvious intent of WP:NOUN is that we should not have "to swim" as the title (using the gerund form "Swimming" instead). Far from supporting the "always" interpretation of WP:NOUN, this logic seems to be a good argument for doing away with WP:NOUN all together... by making everything and anything a noun.
This goes too far... WP:NOUN clearly indicates that we have a preference formal nouns... but that preference is not an absolute mandate... we allow for exceptions when commons sense tells us a non-noun would make a better title. This is why we say "use nouns", but also hedge it with "generally" or "normally". Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Your point is not made. You'd be correct if the article was on the verb "to swim", but why would it be? The verb itself isn't notable, the activity is. The article on the activity is described using the noun construction. There's only a preference for a "formal" noun if a formal noun is appropriate for the title. A formal noun isn't going to be an appropriate title in the case of a title, or an article about a word, term, etc. that isn't a noun itself.Cúchullain t/c 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As I read it, that's exactly what Blueboar meant.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
He's saying that the point of WP:NOUN is that we have a preference for "formal nouns", but that there are exceptions. That's not it, really. What we do have is a very strong preference for nouns or noun phrases, period, whether they're formal or not. The preference is so strong, in fact, that there are virtually no exceptions to it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If you say "formal or not", then it's impossible for there to be any exceptions to it, since noun phrase in the sense other than "formal" (i.e. "functional") can cover anything at all, regardless of what our preferences might be.--Kotniski (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It would not cover articles written with verb or adjective constructions. That's the entire point of "using nouns".--Cúchullain t/c 23:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Even a verb or adjective construction can function as a noun (plenty of examples have already been given).--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the sentence construction. "To swim is to move the body through the water" is written based on a verb construction, and therefore doesn't follow the policy; "swim" should not be the title of the article (swimming should/is). "'Gay' is a term referring to people with a homosexual orientation" is based on a noun construction, and does follow the policy. "Gay" is the appropriate title of the article, even though the word itself is an adjective. Of course there are relatively few adjectives, verbs, phrases, etc. that are notable enough to have their own articles; those that are still written in this construction.


Additionally, proper nouns like "Try to Remember" are, well, proper nouns, and are always appropriate for article titles. The current wording implies they are an exception to standard practice, when they aren't.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Then "Swim is a verb denoting motion of the body through the water" would satisfy your criterion of sentence construction; so the distinction you make doesn't offer any real guidance, except I suppose to the construction of the first sentence (which no text yet suggested mentions explicitly). But that belongs in WP:LEAD.
Now I happen to agree that Swimming and Gay are good titles for the articles, but the reason isn't because they are nouns: they are a gerund and an adjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It would satisfy the standard practice, if the article were on the term "swim". It's not. It's on the action of swimming. The noun describing that is "swimming". There's still also the matter of proper names being identified as an exception to the practice, when they're not.Cúchullain t/c 02:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Then I propose to remove the entire rule; better that than to argue with anybody who wants us to make a rule which says nothing, is bound to be misunderstood, and depends on an understanding of grammar which calls such phrases as Try to Remember noun phrases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"Swimming" and "Gay" can both be nouns, can't they? "Swimming is a sport."; "the only gay in the village". Tony (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There's an implied quotation in the title Gay, if you look at the article it's "Gay is a", rather than just "Gay is a". -Rememberway (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so by my count the change that was made to WP:NOUN is still clearly non consensus, 3 versus 3, which isn't even a majority, and I therefore revert to the version that has stood for multiple years. If you want to change away from the long-standing version you need to get consensus. -Rememberway (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You can take it as read that I revert your revert, since your change does not have consensus either. Now... may I suggest that we both skip the subsequent edit waring, and pretend that an admin has protected the page to the WP:Wrong version... and resolve this dispute by agreeing that we need to establish a wider consensus? I suggest we file an RFC, outlining both of our preferred versions... and let the wider community decide between them. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any recent discussion about versions. Most people seem to be happy with the clarification that was made, and I'm not seeing any real arguments against them.--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar's idea is a good one. It's time to step up the dispute resolution. There is no consensus for either version. The clarification added to the text doesn't quite work, as it implies that "titles of works" are not nouns, though they are.--Cúchullain t/c 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I've forgotten the name of the template, but there's a rarely used format for RFCs that might be appropriate here. Basically, it is a two-column, two-cell table, with each "side" getting one cell to present their preferred wording and to briefly summarize the main arguments in its favor. Rememberway is the obvious person to write the one side; would anyone like to volunteer for the other? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have one proposal

Copied from Talk:Main page

Enhancing level of quick knowledge by adding into names of articles about real persons their occupation in brackets;without any need to read an article to get an idea about who these people were-in cases when person has a little time or need the information about occupation of certain person(s) right now; without actually reading lines in that article that are saying it. Please consider the significance of this change and be ready to discuss it.

(Please do not delete my contribution on this talk page-as I do not know where to write suggestions and proposals for Wikipedia!)--D.M: 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) [User:Pieceofpeper] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieceofpeper (talk • contribs)

That is what an infobox table on the top right-hand corner of articles is for, to add a quick summary list of the subject of the article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes,but you need to make sense of informations you read in infobox and orientate in it,so it may take up more amount of time than it would if there were occupations of people written in names of articles;if people needed to find quckly only that information.--D.M: 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieceofpeper (talk • contribs)

Plus not all articles needing infobox(as they deal with historical person that lived in past centuries or are still living) do,in fact,have infobox. And infobox is lot harder to do than to write occupation in brackets. Plus infobox looks messy,if there are too many bits of information;so people cannot orientate as quickly as they need.--D.M: 20:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Pieceofpeper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieceofpeper (talk • contribs)

I am not saying we should get rid of infoboxes-I´m saying:"Enhancing names of articles with this information would be very beneficial to people searching through Wikipedia".--D.M: 20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieceofpeper (talk • contribs)

A title for biographies of very famous people like "Barack Obama [President of the United States]" would be rather lengthy and unnecessary IMO. Then if you only limit this type of convention to "non-famous people", then you'll open a can of worms of endless debates about who is "famous enough" to not require such brackets. We already get plenty of those discussions regarding disambiguation article titles and primary topic article titles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Then of course, there are those people who are notable for multiple occupations. Should it be "Arnold Schwarzenegger [actor]" or "Arnold Schwarzenegger [Governor of California]"? Or the lengthy "Arnold Schwarzenegger [bodybuilder, model, actor and politician]"? Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Another thing is someone's occupation (whatevery you choose) is sometimes not really connected to why they are famous. One example off the top of the head... I don't follow American football and could perhaps name 5 players if I'm lucky. One of them, I think a lot of the anglophile (or Western?) world could name. However I don't think being accused of murdering your wife followed by a sensational trial fits most definitions of an occupation. Nil Einne (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that you're asking for the actual article titles to be changed to pre-disambiguate unique titles; the proposal looks more like you'd like editors to always include a profession: Arnold Schwarzenegger (bodybuilder, model, actor and politician).
In addition to all of the above objections, I add that the proposal shows a very common Western cultural bias: the belief that your job is the most important aspect of your identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all articles needing infobox(as they deal with historical or contemporary persons)do,in fact,have infobox. For example: Mary Shelley,influential writer does not have an infobox,or should I ask:Is it not considered necessary to make infobox for her? Though there are lots of infoboxes being made everyday to B-class actors and actresses,she does not have infobox,because no one dare to bother. So viewers have a bad luck if they want to find out who she was in short amount of given time;they must read through her full name and lengthy dates of birth and death until they find information they so desperately needed. Another example is Günter Brus ,one of the most important figures of Viennese Actionism,creator of revolutionary book Irrwisch,coiner of "Bild-Dichtungen(Picture-poems) and first pioneer of Body painting-even beforeYves Klein.(And has such short article that it is such a shame to have the article on Wikipedia.) And so on... We definitely should include multiple occupations in brackets as long as it is in the name of article and written in thick font,so people can easily see it and it helps to orientate better as they know what kind of person is it about. We should write non-occupational information person is known for in brackets also,like in case of Charles Manson we should write [serial murderer] and so on. There should be no article about person who is not famous or notable for something. Remark about"western cultural bias" is not on the right place,since I do not care whether we write Bill Gates [American business magnate, philanthropist, author and chairman of Microsoft] or Bill Gates [creator of Microsoft] as long as we will write the thing he is most notable for in the name of the article and in thick font for better visibility.Pieceofpeper--D.M: 13:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this really has nothing to do with the WP:Article titles. An article title . Please click here to look at this picture. This page is about what we put in the two spots that are circled in red. Nothing else in the article is determined by this policy. If you want to change the advice on (for example) what to put for the text marked with a green box in that picture, then you have to convince people to make changes to this other page.
Your problem appears to be that the English Wikipedia is not completely finished. If you see something that is missing, then you should fix it yourself. Nobody is stopping you from adding an WP:Infobox to Mary Shelley if you believe that the article would be improved by adding one. You can make changes like that yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Should diacritics be encouraged or discouraged in article's titles?

You may be interested in my proposal here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Update:
The RFC shows huge support for the proposal to restructure the Manual of Style. But its implementation has been put on hold while editors at WT:MOS consider a possible RFC on the conduct of an editor. Enter a vote; have your say. NoeticaTea? 05:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivory Coast

Howdy. There's a wonderful move request currently open, or re-closed, or re-re-opened, over at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. It's kind of a pretty big, long-embattled titling dispute, and it has the potential to stand as a strong precedent for future titles. Anyone interested might want to check in there, and make sure we're not missing any important considerations.

Thanks in advance for any interest and/or participation. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

retitling the "Naming conventions"

As you know, back in January of 2010 we moved the title of this page from its old title of WP:Naming conventions to its current title of WP:Article titles (the discussion took place here). We did this primarily because the word "Name" carries with it religious, political, and other emotional baggage that the word "Title" does not have. Since then, the policy has remained fairly stable. The endless debates and arguments that we used to get have died off.

Or so it seemed... as it turns out, they didn't die off, they simply moved to the various "Naming conventions" guidelines and sub-pages that fall under this Policy. For a current example, see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC.

Looking at these debates, I am detecting the same underlying problem that we used to have here ... people are getting hung up over the word "name", and can not get past all the baggage that come with it. (In the example above, the issue centers on "names" that are spelled with diacritics in the subject's native language.)

I think the time has come to conform all of our "naming conventions" to the current terminology ... and change their titles to something that drops the the word "name" and uses "Title" instead. ("Title conventions"?... "Titling conventions"?). Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think all these pages should be called "Article titles (xxx)" or at least something with both article and title in. Especially "article". Not that I particularly perceive an issue with emotional baggage as you describe, but simply because "names" (or even "titles") is ambiguous, until you tell people that it's names/titles of articles that we're talking about. --Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have found that more people understand the concepts we talk about in this policy (and are more willing let go of their emotional POVs) if we clearly distinguish between the "name" of the subject, and the "title" of the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a big problem. Titles by itself would include section titles. This policy specifically concerns article titles, doesn't it? Tony (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, from my understanding that is correct, this policy is concerned with article titles and not section titles (although many of the concepts we talk about here can be used to achieve consensus where there is a dispute over section titles)... and I have no problem with the more specific format of "WP:Article titles (xxxx)" if that is what people think best. The point of my proposal is to get rid of the word "name" when referring to articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should see how the proposed MoS re-titling works out. If subpaging is effective there, then it might be effective here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both Blueboar's proposal and WhatamIdoing's idea, here. They should not only all be retitled, but they ought to be sub-pages like we're planning on doing to the MoS (supposedly... someone needs to get on that).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
OK... that all makes sense. I don't see any reason to rush (more important to get it right than get it quick)... I'm quite willing stick this on the back burner and revisit it later. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohms (V = IR), you write: "supposedly... someone needs to get on that". I have annotated the RFC section at WP:MOS, showing that the proposal to restructure the Manual of Style is overwhelmingly accepted; but we elicited very little discussion of implementation. I observed that the time was not right, since WP:MOS (the hub of the eventual structure) is yet again locked down, and the talkpage is tied up with politics and dispute. Soon I will post a proposed schedule for moving things forward. I hope that many editors will participate in removing obstructions, and in the implementation itself. It should involve more than mere mechanical pages moves, and there are legacy subpages (like old discussions and drafts) that need consideration.
I agree: the restructure promises to be a model for similar changes elsewhere.
NoeticaTea? 23:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed and discussed before and I think it is a bad idea to name them "Article titles (xxx)". When "Article titles" page was named "Naming conventions" people were confused where policy stopped and guidance began, specifically when the Naming conventions policy referred to "Naming conventions" some people assumed that it encompassed guidance as policy because the phrase was then ambiguous. I think that policy and guidance is an important distinction and useful distinction that should not be lost again. Article titles and its guidelines are different from the MOS where all, including WP:MOS are guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never really been able to see what the use of this policy/guideline distinction is - in general, but particularly in relation to the pages that deal with article titles. This page is (mostly) more general, the others are more specific, that's all. As long as people understand that (and they will, if they see this page called "Article titles" and the others called "Article titles/Xxx"), then I don't think there's any other disctinction to understand - but even if there were, we aren't conveying that distinction by calling one page "Article titles" and the others "Naming conventions" - that just implies the pages are about two different things, without saying anything about their policy/guideline status. In order to achieve what you want we would have to retitle this page "Article titling policy" or something like that.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:PG "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts". It benefits the project if there is one clear policy on article titles. When a group of editors (typically those involved in a specific project) come up with ideas for inclusion in a naming conventions guideline, having one central policy page, means that the either have to word it so that the guidance complies with policy, or they need to get wider consensus to change policy. Take for example the failed or historic guidelines in Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions and guidelines, without a central policy as a yard stick to measure the proposed guidelines against, it would be far harder to keep article titling consistent across current and proposed guidelines. This is not unique or novel approach as it similar to the approach that was adopted for WP:RS and WP:V to make sure that the guideline reliable sources did not contradict verifiability policy. -- PBS (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen a reason this page should be policy rather than guideline. And it does need a notice at the top of this talk page, as does MoS, advising that both pages should be consistent with each other. Tony (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Aide-mémoire from August 2008: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 11#Requested move -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Principal naming criteria in subpage

I suggest it would be useful and helpful to include the principal naming criteria in other pages in a way that avoids having to update it on those pages every time it is changed here.

It seems to me the obvious solution is to create a subpage, WP:Title/PrincipalNamingCriteria, and include that in WP:Title as well as in any other page in which listing them could be helpful. Example: WP:How2title.

So, I did that. But it has been reverted with the unhelpful comment, "you can copy it to another page, but please leave it in the policy". Yes, I know I can copy it (duh), but then we have to main 2 (or 20, or whatever) copies of the criteria, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid! What's the harm is maintaining this separately in a subpage? It looks the same when you view the policy page, and it's obvious what's going on if you need to edit them. We can put the policy tag on the subpage, if concern for it losing the "policy" status is the issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and marked the new criteria subpage as policy to remind anyone that might edit it that it's policy too, and reverted the main page so it includes that subpage again per the explanation above. That addresses every objection I can fathom, but if there is still something I'm missing, please explain. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Born, I am not at all sure I understand your rational for creating a subpage. And I very much object to the idea of moving this particular material off to a subpage. We are talking about the principal criteria that form the heart of this policy... these are what the rest of the policy sections hang from. They definitely need to remain stated in the policy and not shunted off to a subpage. If you need to refer to them in some other guideline or policy, I would think the best way to do so is through a short cut link.
I'm also not sure I understand your concern about changes... for one thing, this is probably the single most stable section in the policy (I can not even remember the last substantial edit that was made to these criteria). It isn't likely to change. But, more importantly, it certainly isn't likely to change quickly or without a fair amount of debate and consensus building (as any change to it would have a ripple effect on multiple other policy and guidelines.) On the other hand, it would be more likely to be changed without consensus if were "hidden away" on a subpage where people are less likely to pay attention to it. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... OK... Hold on a second... my revert (and above objections) may be based on a misreading of Born2's edit ... I reverted based on the diff page (here) where it appears as if he removed the material (the list of principal criteria) and replaced it with a link to his subpage... however when I look at the actual text of the edit, I find that the material has remained in the article. Given this, I may not have as much of an issue with his edit. I am still not sure that a subpage is needed or even a good idea... but my primary objection was to what I thought was a removal of important text. It will be helpful if we start over...
Born... could you explain more clearly what your concerns are and why you think a subpage would resolve them? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't know how to explain the reason for doing this more clearly than I did above, but I'll try.

But first, I still don't understand your objection. You do realize that when you go to WP:TITLE the criteria remain listed right there on that page, don't you? What difference does it make whether they're physically contained on that actual source page or separate source subpage, as long as it's rendered as one coherent policy?

Actually, the wording does evolve on this list. Yesterday I discovered that a few months ago the wording recognizability wording was changed, which used to explicitly clarify that we were referring about someone familiar with the topic. Anyway, that's a wording change that would have to be updated in upteen places, if this criteria was copied in upteen places as you suggest. By containing the source for the criteria in a transcluded subpage, all those updates are automatically and immediately made simultaneously. One less thing for editors to worry about. Isn't that a good thing? Plus, it means we can easily list that important criteria in any discussion, simply by typing: {{WP:Title/PrincipalNamingCriteria}}, like this:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.)
I just don't see the downside to doing this, especially now that the few technical problems with doing it this way have been resolved. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you see an advantage in creating a subpage for any other content policy page, or is this going to be the only one? - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a technical method for including the same material on multiple pages in a way that allows updating it simultaneously for all pages that include it. In theory that might be useful for anything. I know that the WP:RM page is broken up this way.

Now that you mention it, it might be useful to structure the primary topic section - at least the part that defines it fundamentally since so many people seem to think it means "most important" (by whatever standard they have in mind) - in a way that makes it easy to include the fundamental definition elsewhere. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume that someone wishes to edit this section of the policy... where should it be discussed on the main policy talk page or on the subpage's talk page? Would this be different from where the edit is actually made? Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I forgot WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of WP:D, not WP:TITLE. No matter, I put the definition in a subpage of that article and transluded it into the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section of WP:D, as well as into WP:How2title where it was previously a copy (and subject to drifting apart should it change in the future). So now we can include the fundamental criteria by which we determine whether a topic is primary anywhere, like this:
--Born2cycle (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Good question, BB. Looking at how it's handled at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header I see that Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Header is redirect to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. We should do that here too. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I did it, and moved the content of that page to a section below. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I still don't fully understand what what you are doing... where will we discuss potential changes to this section? Where will we make edits to it? Will people who have this policy on their watch lists be notified if a change is made?
Please, slow down and stop being quite so bold... fully explain what you are doing and why you are doing it... before you do it. At the moment, I am opposed to what you are doing... simply because I am completely confused as to what you are trying to achieve. It may be that what you are doing is a good idea... but in order for me to support it I need to understand it... both what you are doing and why. That's the only way I can get a grasp on the ramifications of it. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand that it's slightly unusual, but I'd hope that you'd give it a chance Blueboar. This is a really good idea, both here and more in general (not that we should be doing this in a bunch of other places, yet. Giveing people such as yourself some time to get used to it and figure out what's going on is a good thing).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I honestly thought this was such a non-controversial (after all, it changes nothing about what the policy says) and self-explanatory thing, it didn't occur to me to explain and ask first. Changes for that section will continue to be discussed here on this talk page, since the talk page for the subpage is now a redirect to this one. You make edits to it on it - the subpage. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. Are you simply unfamiliar with transclusion? If so, I suggest you read WP:TRANSCLUSION. Do you object transclusion in general, or just in this case?

I believe watching a parent page means you're automatically watching any subpages of that parent, but I'm not sure about that. You might have to put the subpage on watch independently. Maybe somebody else knows? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, subpages are not automatically on one's watchlist, and that is the main problem with your proposal. There are 526 watchers of Wikipedia:Article titles and almost none of the subpage. Someone could change the subpage without as many people noticing. A second problem is that transclusions are more difficult to understand and edit, especially for newer editors. Since the only benefit is that an essay which only you edit would change automatically if the new subpage were ever changed, I don't think the advantage outweighs the disadvantage at this point. Station1 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
B2 - Thank you for linking to WP:TRANSCLUSION. You are correct that I was not familiar with the concept, and that lack of familiarity was part of my hesitation. I sort of knew what it was, but did not understand it until now. This is certainly the first time in all my years of editing policy pages that I have come across it in a policy context (note, I am not saying it isn't used in other policies... just that I have not, personally, seen it used... or at least was not aware of it being used).
So... I now better understand what you did. The next step is for you to explain why you did it. What are the benefits and downsides to transclusion in general... and more importantly, what are the benefits and downsides to using it in this specific case? (I am seriously concerned with the issue that Station1 raises). Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Watch#Other_effects_of_watching_a_page, page creations show up on watch lists, so anyone watching this page should have seen the original sub page creation, not to mention all of this discussion about it. The rule that any change of substance to the policy requires discussion first, which would mean discussion on this watched talk page, continues to apply. Of course there are only a few of us directly watching the brand new criteria subpage, but that number should grow. Even if it doesn't, it shouldn't take very many of us, perhaps even only one, to effectively enforce the discuss changes first rule, and that should be good enough since, again, the talk page for the subpage redirects to this shared/watched main talk page. So the downside of the possibility of someone making some kind of serious change to the criteria without everyone watching this page being notified remains about as unlikely as it always was.

As a point of comparison, WP:RM has 1384 watchers [4], while the transcluded Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header has only 30. Yet the Header subpage is where the "rules" about RM are contained. Since those changes are discussed on the main (watched by 1384) talk page, and 30 appears more than enough to enforce it, it's not an issue there, so I don't see why it would be an issue here. If nothing else, as the creator of the subpage I will be particularly diligent about watching for undiscussed changes made to it.

As far as the transclusions being difficult to understand for newer editors, I don't expect them to be trying to edit policy. For legitimate changes to the criteria by experienced editors who are confused by the transclusion, all they have to do is ask.

As to the advantages, I've now transcluded the criteria and the definition of primary topic definition into WP:How2title, which is in a process of being steadily refined and (hopefully) improved. I'm sure there other essays, and perhaps even guidelines and policies, that could be made more useful and helpful if they actually listed the naming criteria and stated the primary topic definition (via transclusion to guarantee being current), instead of linking to it.

It has been only a day. As did Ohm's Law above, I suggest we give it more time to see if any real problems actually arise, or if the advantages becomes more obvious. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This technique is occasionally useful, but I don't think that it's warranted in this case. The sole benefit appears to be increasing Born2cycle's convenience at Wikipedia:How2title. The major disadvantage is the institution of perpetual confusion among people who want to edit this page. That confusion will take the form of deleting the transclusion link ("dunno what that is... probably shouldn't be here") and having to explain to people how to find and edit the subpage ("Oh, adding a link to those sentences requires extra work. First, you go to some other page...").
If we had multiple policy and guideline pages that contained this or very similar text, I would be more sympathetic, but as it is, I see no benefit to the community as a whole, and all of the costs being borne by that community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, WhatamIdoing. See my reasons in the next section.
Strong oppose. Please do not use transclusions in guideline and policy pages.
Also, please structure discussions in a more lucid way. These sections would be better grouped as subsections, each clearly labelled to indicate a specific purpose. (The present sprawl does not augur well for rational implementation of transclusions, when everything would have to be made perfectly clear.) NoeticaTea? 23:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/Move Request

There is a move request at Talk:China that could use the opinions of editors involved with Wikipedia naming issues and not invested in intra-China politics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Subpage mechanics

Suggestion. If this subpaging is agreed on, the section name should be part of the subpage. That way, editing the section on the main page automatically edits the subpage, as do transcluded pages on WP:AfD and WP:RfD.

BTW, what probably should have been done was to move the main page to the subpage, and back, before actually copying the subpage. Then watchlists would have automatically been updated. But that's water under the bridge; it can't easily be done that way without first deleting the page, and starting over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yea. I was gonna say something about this earlier. That way, when you click [Edit] you're taken straight to the sub-page (and you never see the template...) That's a cool trick about moving the page back and forth, though. Something to keep in mind for later, certainly.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestions, Arthur, though it would be most useful then to have just the list of criteria in its own section, because that's all that really needs to be part of any other page. As to retaining the history, the page/move/copy trick could still be easily done with a speedy delete. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a heading to the subpage and indeed that makes it editable directly from the parent page. It's seamless. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I was gonna say to use a third level header, but I see that you've done that already. Why just the list though, instead of the whole (2nd level) section? Is there a specific place or places in addition to here that you have in mind for using it?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, at WP:How2title I wanted to list just the criteria. That's what everybody seems to use in RM discussions too. I can't recall anyone ever referring to any of the verbiage in that section outside of the list. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just less common. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I see. Good to know.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
How about if it the list got a policy shortcut too. It's pretty annoying having to introduce it as "WP:AT's list of prinipal criteria for article naming" or something like that every time you want to refer to it in a naming discussion.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it has a section heading now, and the introduction would show up when it was transcluded into this page too, which might look funny. I think we could make a special template for the case of transcluding into a talk discussion that would have an introduction and also transclude the "raw" list. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was, couldn't the section with the list get list of criteria get a link to it, the way WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION has it, so that it could more easily get referred to in naming discussions.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. I created WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, WP:CRITERIA, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA; each point to that section now. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Creation of PrincipalNamingCriteria subpage

I created the PrincipalNamingCriteria subpage by copying the principal criteria from what was then the current version: [5]. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work as a transclusion, other than in WP:TITLE. I made some necessary changes, but more changes need to be made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right! Good find, and thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand WHY have you created this subpage. Please explain. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Transclusion#Pages_with_a_common_section. Transclusion in this particular case makes it possible to list the principal naming criteria on other pages (like essays) in a way that avoids having to separately maintain it on those pages. That way every time it is changed here, it is automatically changed there. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
OK... Thanks for the link. I now understand what you have done... now I need to understand why you are doing it. I gather that the idea behind transclusion is to allow two pages to share the same material... so what other policy or guideline page uses this material?
Well, now that the criteria is in a separate page, it can be transcluded by other policy or guideline pages. But transclusion is not limited to other policy or guideline pages. It can be transcluded on talk pages, as I demonstrated above, and also on essay pages, as I did at WP:How2title, which I noted as an example in my first comment of this discussion. If you still don't see how that's useful or helpful, I'm at a complete loss. If you think it's a problem to transclude the criteria into essay pages, please explain. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I can see how it might be useful... I am less sure as to helpful... at least when it comes to policy pages. I have a real problem with important sections of a policy being separated from the policy page itself. If there were some way to do a transclusion without moving the section to a third page, I would probably be highly supportive... but edits to policy pages should remain with the policy page. I am very concerned about the fact that the subpage can be edited without those who regularly watch the policy page being aware that a change was made. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Currently, references on other pages to the criteria are done via links, which means anyone reading those pages has to click on the link to actually see the criteria. Of course editors are free to copy the criteria, but when they do, that information is subject to becoming stale and inaccurate. Hence the links are preferred.

By putting the criteria into a transcludable separate page, now the criteria can be explicitly listed in a manner that remains current and up-to-date. That seems very helpful to me, in terms of making it possible for editors of other pages to accurately inform their readers regarding exactly what the criteria are.

I understand your concern about someone changing the criteria without others noticing, but by adding the criteria subpage to your watchlist, you can almost completely solve that problem yourself. I've explained above how it should take only a few of us watching the new subpage to completely solve the problem, since requiring any changes to be discussed first on this talk page (so that anyone who watches this page is informed) is all that is required. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You assume that all changes will be discussed on the talk page first. I wish it were true, but it isn't. People often make small but significant edits to policy pages without discussing it first (they may not even realize that the change is significant... example: removing a chunk of text to a transclusion page without previous discussion). Thankfully, the main page of a policy is likely to have lots of people watching it. Such changes are usually noticed and examined (and if problematic, reverted or questioned). We actually have a term for this process... the WP:BRD cycle. Unfortunately, this is usually not the case when it comes to policy subpages. Subpages are often only watched by a small group (often with an agenda). One problem is that editors getting involved on the policy page for the first time may not even be aware these subpages exist.
My concern with having the criteria list "hidden away" on a tranclusion page, it that is less likely that someone will notice a small but significant change made to it. It is more likely that a small but problematic change will be slip through and not be questioned.
I understand the appeal of having something you want to quote automatically update if the original text changes... but I don't think the benefits out weigh the problems. If you want to quote part of this policy in your How2Title essay, I think it better to update it the old fashioned way... by periodically checking this page to see if the text has been changed, and then manually updating your essay. (actually, the fact that you have to do this manually has an important side benefit... it means there is at least one person who will definitely notice that the text has changed... and can question that change if needed.) Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't assume that all changes will be discussed on the talk page first. I assume that when changes are not discussed first, there will be enough watching the subpage to notice it, revert, and then they will be discussed on the talk page.

What problems? All the problems you suggest are purely imagined and hypothetical. I promise I will be at the head of the list support undoing the transclusion if any of it actually manifests in reality. Of course. I think you're really exaggerating how many people have to watch the subpage to keep the potential problems potential.

I understand that this is new and different, and thus the reluctance. But give it a chance. I was confused the first time I tried to edit WP:RM, but I quickly figured it out. It can, and will, happen here too. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Which policies and guidelines do you think should include these naming criteria?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The following notice is intended to stay on this page. Please do not move it an archive page.

NOTICE: Add Wikipedia:Title/PrincipalNamingCriteria to your watchlist

Watchers of this page may want to add the new transcluded subpage containing the primary naming criteria, Wikipedia:Title/PrincipalNamingCriteria, to their watchlists. Any changes to the criteria on that subpage are subject to the same discuss changes first rule as applies to the rest of this policy, and it should only take a few of us watching that subpage to enforce that effectively.

Any discussion about that page should and will occur here (which is presumably watched by everyone who watches the main policy page) on the talk page of the main policy page, since the talk page for the subpage redirects to this one. Thus even those who don't watch the subpage directly will be notified of discussions about it on their watchlists.

This will help... until this message gets archived away. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Surely there must be a way to keep the notice on the talk page so it won't get moved to an archive page. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Stick it on the top of the page, in a message box template, without a date.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, we're planning on dong this sort of thing with the entire MoS... eventually. Well, sorta. I think we should use both subpages and transclusion with the main MoS page as well, but the current plan is to just take all the various MoS pages and make them sub-pages of the main Manual of Style page. ...Just FYI. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for more.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There is an important difference between what is being suggested with the MOS pages and what is happening here... The various MOS pages already exist as separate pages... tying them to the main MOS guideline page by making them subpages is a way to unify them and bring order out of chaos (I could see doing something similar to various Notability guidelines as well). However, here, Born2 has done the opposite... he wants to separate a core section of the policy from the policy page where it belongs and create a new subpage for it. He disunites something that is and should be united ... creating (at least the potential for) chaos from order.
I think this needs a wider audience... RFC? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. "he wants to separate a core section of the policy from the policy page" just isn't true. It's transcluded onto the policy page, after all. And actually, I was planning on making a case for doing exactly this for the main MoS so that the page can be more stable and suffer for being protected less often (admins can protect the subpages as needed, rather than locking down the entire content). I get that you're not used to this, having never seen it before (apparently), but... I don't know, give it a chance. If you really want to go with the RFC I'm certainly not going to stop you, I just hope that you'll be a little more open minded I guess.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't separate policy from the policy page. What's important is what the policy says, and that's not affected at all by this technical change that facilitates reliable and accurate reuse of key passages. I don't see how anything so unimportant warrants an RFC, but if that's what it takes for others to be convinced it's "okay", whatever.

Maybe you have to be a programmer to appreciate it? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is on the same page only as far as reading the policy is concerned... when it comes to editing and monitoring changes, it has been moved to a separate page. That is what I dislike. I am not going to "give it a chance" as long as I think the negatives out weigh the positives. You are going to have to convince me that there is a need for this. I just don't see it. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
These concerns are addressed by Arthur's suggestions below. Do you have any others? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Explain further... how does Arthur's suggestion below address my concerns?... remember that I don't fully understand the technical aspects of this. Don't just tell me "it's addressed" and assume I get it... spell it out for me. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read through all of this. I advise strongly against using transclusions in this way. It was attempted at WP:MOS a couple of years ago, and brought nothing but chaos and confusion. Ideally, we could indeed manage policies and guidelines in a systematic modular fashion. But in practice it alienates editors, creating a rift between those who can handle the tricky technical aspects and those who give up when faced with it. Compare the situation here, where an admin wanted to make a requested change, but was defeated by technical complexity. That's the last thing we want in a participatory project. NoeticaTea? 23:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm astounded that a simple WP:TRANSCLUSION is a "technical complexity" sufficient to confound editors. I don't know what you did at MOS, but it sounds more complex than adding a few transclusions. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Your other example does involve something significantly more tricky - editing javascript code that generates text on another page. That's very different, and confusion about that is much more understandable. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, B2C, it was not I who did that at WP:MOS. Someone else introduced transclusions, and managed to mess things up so that it took serious detective work to sort things out. It was a relief to be free of it. Yes, the edittools example is more complex. But it is instructive. If you don't like to hear opinions based on experience and concrete examples, perhaps talkpages are not your thing. :) But that's what they're all about, you know.
I am for certain types of transclusions that are clearly documented, and sectioned off as headers and the like. See the example at the top of WT:MOS, with the label "Suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides". I made that one. See the text inside the box, at the top. NoeticaTea? 00:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well we could certainly structure it as the type that you are for, as discussed below. That sounds like working towards consensus. But comparing this to a situation which is clearly much more technically complex is not helpful at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Born2cycle. I'm simply stunned at this reaction. A basic mechanism of the MediaWiki software, used billions of times throughout the encyclopedia (through templates mostly, but quite often used in this manner in articles as well), is suddenly "a technical complexity sufficient to confound editors."? I just can't grasp that. Not to be rude but... how do you guys manage to navigate to the site at all? That's only partially hyperbolic as well... I mean, seriously? How is this such a difficult concept to grasp? I'm not trying to put anyone down here, but I mean... haven't any of you used a template before?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
By adding a section heading, Principal naming criteria, to the subpage, it's now editable directly from the parent - seamless! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohms (V = IR) and B2C: Be stunned or astounded as you see fit, and declare helpful or unhelpful whatever it suits your purposes to declare helpful or unhelpful. I simply report what happened. It is notoriously hard to predict what people will find obscure, and what people will manage to mess up. I hope you don't mind if I give two current examples: First, the way you present your username, Ohms: "V = IR". As I have pointed out before, the reader who is familiar with Ohm's law may be baffled when others answer a post by someone called "Ohms". Read or search the page as they will, they will find no post by this "Ohms". That doesn't seem to bother you! Second, Ohms, you could not work out what was being proposed at WT:MOS recently, when I used a neatly labelled navbox (which bore the usual tab "Show" at the right), preceded by the words "The draft itself" in bold. I am amazed that an editor of your proficiency and experience could not work that out immediately. Someone explained it (with inaccuracies and abuse against me!); someone added an even more salient pointer; and you were satisfied. I have to learn from that.
We all have to learn from such things. Repeating our starting position regardless of evidence, arguments, and others' experiences does not qualify as discussion.
NoeticaTea? 01:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
But now that it's seamlessly editable directly from the policy page as if it was still part of the policy page source, what is there to learn? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That only works if you edit directly from the third level header, not from the second level or from the top of the page. Station1 (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
What is there to learn? At least these: caution, less speed and more deliberation, consultation before editing a core policy page, respect for an alternative point of view that is clearly stated, maturity of judgement, flexibility, orderliness in discussion. That's the general stuff. You could start with those. NoeticaTea? 02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Caution and deliberation are fine, as long as they don't turn into paralysis and apathy which... I mean, I'm not trying to turn this into a personal thing, but to be frank I think that you're often passive, Noetica.
Now... To Sation1, Noetica, Blueboar, etc... I know that I'm willing to listen, and I'm sure B2C is as well. Is there any actual problem to be addressed? Is there something that we're not seeing that is really problematic? Yes, if you click the second level header you'll see a template in the edit box where the list is. That's the same wikitext that is used for normal templates, and there's a link to the page provided below the edit box. With the third level header there now, it's likely that most who are interested in editing that portion of text will click the edit link for that section anyway (certainly not all, but a significant proportion will). So, what else is a problem? That someone dared to change the page without permission?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It introduces confusing inconsistency in how the page is organized. It is one thing for pages like WP:AfD to use transclusions, where every one of the sections is transcluded in the same consistent structure -- but this introduces a one-off transclusion in the middle of an otherwise ordinary policy page. That is undesirable. And the rationale to make it easier for one editor to transclude the text in another essay doesn't really justify the additional complexity. older ≠ wiser 02:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohms (V = IR): It would indeed be wise not to get personal. I certainly disagree with your tentative suggestion (I am normally accused of quite the opposite ☺). But enough of that! I only want policy and guideline pages to be treated with great caution, and changes to be thoroughly discussed and documented. There is material embedded in WP:MOS that was ill-documented last year, and it will take considerable effort to undo the damage. Similar things have happened here. We should all learn from this.
I have requested that the page be protected, and it now is.
Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser): I agree, of course.
NoeticaTea? 04:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I tried something like this a few years back by using a text template for a history that was pertinent to seven groups, but changed as new facts were found/cited. A mere link to the history was considered too obscure. Editors objected that the template could change without their knowledge. Of course, current editors could watch the template.
They also objected that newbies would see {{template}} and not know what do to edit.
To make a long story short, it died a natural death. I tried arguing this out on a policy page on templates and was shot down.
For some reason, it reminded me of this transclusion debate. Student7 (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No exceptions from WP:Common name

I suggest to remove modify these phrases from the policy: "Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine)." Let's remove it. Such arbitrary exceptions may be used to bypass the WP:Common name, as should be clear from this discussion. Using naming conventions that contradict majority of RS is highly questionable at best. Biophys (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, these are not really exemptions to WP:COMMONNAME, but applications of it. Let's look at the case of flora (plants)... The same plant may have several different common names... it may be commonly called "spike weed" in one part of the English speaking world, and "thorn bush" somewhere else... but in all parts of the English speaking world it is also referred to by its scientific name. Thus, the scientific name is actually more common than the locally used "common" name. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the naming convention for plants is that it assumes that the scientific name is always the most common name, instead of looking at the names on a case by case level. So for example even though dandelions only have that one common name in English, it's still placed under the less common scientific name Taraxacum.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with that. We would have a mess without using standard biological nomenclature. Biophys (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
An absolute ban on exceptions would violate WP:IAR, it's not a good idea at all. Roger (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that WP:IAR is itself a "rule", which means we can invoke WP:IAR to ignore a violation of WP:IAR. (not recommending this... just noting that IAR has its own built in contradictions. It should be invoked sparingly) Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
In this case I argue to use the most common scientific name of a natural compound, as follows from scientific citation index database and even "Google books" searches. Another side argues that this natural compound is used as a drug and therefore suggests to use some kind of international nomenclature that is less common name. What we suppose to do? Thank you, Biophys (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you ask for help from WP:WikiProject Pharmacology, and that you remember that all article titles, no matter what the subject, are ultimately determined by consensus, which means that you need to be trying to win friends and influence people, rather than pounding on the "law" about naming.
In general, the decision between "commonest name used by chemists" and "commonest name used by medical professionals" is decided by determining which is the more important use of the substance. If a properly balanced article says very little about medical use, then we would pick the chemistry name. If it were mostly about medical uses, then we would pick the medical name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought it does not matter if this is medicine or chemistry. It only matters what majority of WP:RS tell (a significant part of them obviously come from medicine). Is not it? If I understand the comment by Blueboar correctly, these specific conventions should not override WP:Common name. Right? Biophys (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Specific conventions frequently "override" WP:Common name, in the sense that they tell you how to differentiate between a search engine's estimate of the number of pages that might contain that string of letters, and the name commonly used by high-quality reliable sources.
However, rather than worrying about any of that, there's actually only one sentence in the entire policy that you need to deal with at this point. That sentence says:

There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article;
the choice between them is made by consensus.

Nothing else matters in this particular situation. There are two alternative titles. The choice between them is made by consensus, not by ghits. You have to get people to voluntarily agree with you that the article would be better placed at the other name. You do this with friendliness, social skills, and consensus-building, not with telling them that they have no choice but to do it your way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The ideal title is one that fulfills all of our various criteria at the same time... but we realize that this is not always possible. Sometimes we have to depreciate one or the other in order to gain consensus.
WhatamIdoing is correct... while we usually favor Recognizability and Naturalness (which come together in the concept of WP:COMMONNAME) over the others.... there are exeptions to this, and sometimes we favor one of the others instead. The simple fact is, we can not set firm and fast "one-size-fits-all" rules when it comes to choosing the best article title. Every article has unique issues that can impact what title we give it. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

English-Centric = Protestant centric?

One problem that I just ran across was the use of the term "defrocking" (or "unfrocking") for laicization of a member of the clergy. This is essentially an "informal" semi-derogatory term. It is most common in English-speaking countries, but laicization is often (less often) used as well. A name change was proposed and lost, following the rules of this policy. It is a bit Protestant-oriented IMO. Clergy "defrocked" are most often Catholic.

I'm sure this isn't the first time that something English-centric has turned out to be some other centric as well, a little less defensible. Not sure what to offer as a workable alternative for a general rule, but did want to point that out. Student7 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like it... but both WP:AT#Neutrality in article titles and WP:NPOV#Naming indicate that this is the word that should be used... even if it seems derogatory or non-neutral to some people. I think it is appropriate to use English-centric words in an English language encyclopedia. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
IMO the most interesting thing about the discussion at Talk:Defrocking#Requested_move is the assertion that the two terms are not actually synonyms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Exceptions to national varieties of English

This was discussed here earlier, Ganga/Ganges isn't a settled fact. (1)Earlier the argument was that it is Ganges not Ganga because there was divided local use. It was demonstrated that it was not the case, which resulted in the example being taken off. (2)Now the argument is international intelligiblity, which is again disputable. Please see the archives of this page, where it was demonstrated that, Ganga is more popular than Ganges, internationally, in English, whereas even a 10-20% acceptance would have been enough. (3)There was a move proposal; that Ganges be moved to Ganga, though the move has been closed, since the dispute is not settled, it cannot be considered as an example, as it is used to influence the Ganga move debate. (5)Though one particular move proposal was closed, if you watch the pages the debate is on-going and another move proposal will come up any time. In that case the statement "Ganges not Ganga", takes sides on a controversial issue, which it shouldn't. So please find another example.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I had to undo Quigley's undoing my edit. His summary was The text doesn't preclude dispute, which is wrong. Examples here should be about undisputed titles, and not controversial ones.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is at Ganges because the previous discussion was not as described above. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(1)Demonstrate it wasn't. (2)The issue is controversial. Shouldn't be used as an example, that way this place would be neutral and not put its weight behind Ganges.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
We choose Ganges over "Ganga" because it better fits with three out out of our five criteria:
  • Recognizability: Outside of India, Ganges is far more common and recognizable than Ganga.
  • Naturalness: Ganges is the variant that readers will be "most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles)"
  • Precision: "Ganga" is somewhat ambiguous, as it could easily be confused with "ganja" (ie marijuana). this potential for confusion does not occur with "Ganges."
More importantly, we choose Ganges because the last time this was discussed, there was a consensus to do so. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(1)All the above have been proved false. Please check archives here and at Ganga. (2)My point is and which should be crystal clear, the issue is controversial, it isn't settled, it shouldn't be usesd as an example.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Good you said We chose Ganges over Ganga because..., the statement Ganges not Ganga, isn't for making choices, it is to give an example, which shouldn't be controversial.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It is an example of how we applied the policy to choose between two potential titles. How we used the policy to resolve a dispute. (The fact that some people want to continue the dispute even after resolution is another matter). Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As to 1) I have looked at the archives here, and at the talk page for the article, and at the various move discussions elsewhere. The above has not been proven false (although several people have claimed it is). The only reason why the issue is controversial is that POV editors continue to push their agenda despite consensus. As to 2) I have no problem with choosing another example for this page. Can you suggest one? Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to largely just be Yogesh who is so vehemently opposed to the entirely reasonable decision we came to on Ganges. The reason it is included here is precisely because it is such an instructive example, because it appears to be an exception to the rule. By including it here, we can explain why it is not actually out of line with our guidelines. That guidance is very useful. Powers T 13:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(edit conflict)od)(1)That is your opinion, but Wikipedia has two castes, one of POV pushers who push their agenda, and another who can evaluate over 400 edits, and the hundreds of sources they quote, in minutes. (2)I don't, that cannot be an excuse to keep Ganges not Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The only person pushing an agenda here is you. Powers T 14:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't someone say the same thing about you too?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyways what made you say that? Could you have a peep at wp:ETIQUETTE please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No ganga, please
Yogesh Khandke, this is not the place to re-argue the Ganges dispute. The fact that that article's title is at odds with majority local usage (but in line with majority international usage—don't argue with me on this point, it's what consensus determined) perfectly demonstrates the policy, no matter how much it displeases you. Quigley (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)That it is reasonable is your imagination. (2)What is the meaning of our, and who qualifies as your?. (3)A case that isn't settled cannot be used as an example. (4)The moment the move would be proposed we would have National Varieties quoted, which would make the argument circular, Wikipedia English has millions of pages, another example should be found, pending which no example should work fine.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke did the same thing last November (see the archives). The consensus was against his proposed change then, and I see no reason to believe that the consensus has changed since then. The problem may be an inability to believe that most editors disagree with him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(1)WhatamIdoing you seem to have forgotten that the text Ganges not Ganga was removed, that was a result of long arguments and debates and a consensus. It was put back later without debate stealthily. Which shouldn't have happened as it shows disregard to the consensus a result of long discussions. (2)Like Quigley says this is not the place for the Ganga-Ganges debate, my issue is that there is a dispute and a wikipedia policy shouldn't put its weight behind a version that is not settled. I am not going to react to the image of गांजा if anyone has an argument GangaxGanges like Quigley said this is not the place, this place is for settled conventions. GangaxGanges isn't one.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The Ganges issue is settled, unless you want to start another move request right now. Any one person could be unhappy with any example for the policy, but consensus is not unanimity. Quigley (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't, see the page, there is a live debate, months after the closure. Ya and consensus isn't Democracy like you commented on the Mahatma Gandhi move, you cannot have one rule here and another there.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Where is this debate taking place (besides here)? Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Ganges#Ganga?, started by a user with his third edit. Powers T 19:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That seems to be a discussion about the proper pronunciation of "Ganga" (an appropriate discussion since "Ganga" is given as an alternative name in the article) ... not a discussion over whether to use Ganges or Ganga as the article title. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The Ganges, as its own Wikipedia page reminds us, is a trans-boundary river of India and Bangladesh, not India's alone. "Ganga" is not the international name of the river. Indeed, it is not even the name of river in Bangladesh, where in English, it is more often called the "Ganges" (see searches in domain name .bd (bangalesh): "Ganga": 2,900 returns, and "Ganges": 6,000 returns). More commonly, in Bangladesh, it is called the "Padma": 52,000 returns or "Meghna": 84,000 returns. Even more crucially, the United Nations Cartographic Division's map calls it "Ganges", as do all quality encyclopedias. The sentence in the WP:Article title page about "Ganges" is very apt, and should remain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)As Quigley said this page isn't for content disputes, the issue is whether an example that is contentious should be here? Obviously not. Save your breath folks.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Strident objections are not sufficient to overrule consensus. Previous discussions have been exhaustive and involved a substantial number of different editors, and as no new information has been presented, this discussion should be closed as unproductive. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
On this page, previous discussions resulted in a consesual decision that manifested itself in the removal of Ganges not Ganga, its introduction without discussion is wrong, especially when doing so would influence the Ganga move.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you link to the discussion where this "consensual decision" to remove "Ganges rather than Ganga" was reached? Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
On second thought... while I would still like to see a link to that decision, it is really irrelevant. We should determine what the current consensus is. (see poll below). Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We can settle this easily - Has consensus changed?

As often happens, we have a disagreement as to what a previous consensus actually was... but it does not really matter whether the previous consensus was to use or not to use Ganges/Ganga as the example, since consensus can change (whatever it was). What we need to determine is what the current consensus is. From the discussion above, it appears that the current consensus is to use it... but this appearance this can be confirmed by taking a quick poll:

Do we currently have a consensus to a) continue to use the Ganges article to illustrate the statement: "However, sometimes a form which represents only minority local usage is chosen because of its greater intelligibility to English-speaking readers worldwide" - or b) should we find another example?

(reminder to both sides in the debate: do not engage in WP:Canvassing to "win" this poll).
(Also note: this is not a poll over whether to change the article's title... this is a poll over whether to use it as an example on this policy page.)
  • I think it is a very good example... so I lean towards continue to use... however if someone can come up with a better example, I would be willing to consider using that instead. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's an excellent example of a case that appears to be an exception to our guidelines but really isn't. Powers T 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, policies are supposed to provide clear guidance for seemingly ambiguous issues. Ganges is a great example because there is a small contingent of editors who have tried to impose their local usage on the global encyclopedia; by pointing users to the Ganges page, readers of this policy can review the arguments at that move discussion and better understand why such requests fail. Quigley (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well we cannot have it like this. (1)First revert the article, to status where Ganges not Ganga didn't exist, which reflected the earlier consensus. (2)Then put this poll up, and give it reasonable time. (3)In the mean time, you could have a look at what Sue Gardner said about Ganga[6]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You still haven't pointed us to this supposed "earlier consensus". And now you're bringing in an appeal to authority? Keep racking up the fallacies. Powers T 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessarily an appeal to authority; it could be an appeal to a good argument. However, all she says about it there is that the official name in India is "Ganga" (which is not relevant to us) but also admits that the British have long called it "Ganges" (which is relevant to us because the British are English speakers) and that it "bears the stench of colonization for many Indians" (also not relevant). She then declares that the minority supporting "Ganga" is correct, without saying about what. Correct about "Ganga" meeting our principal naming criteria better than "Ganges" does? She doesn't even imply that. Her argument seems to be that the minority is "correct" about "Ganga" being the "official" name in India - again, that's not even relevant here. Anyway, never mind the British, "Ganges" is also used by the American NY Times [7].

Unless and until the main English reliable sources change from using Ganges to using Ganga, neither will Wikipedia, as that is very strong evidence supporting the notion that "Ganges" is more recognizable to, and expected by, our readers, than is "Ganga". And this remains a good example for illustrating how much actual usage in English reliable sources is given more preference in deciding titles than does "official" use. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we can assume that Yogesh !votes for "find a new example" (correct me if this is wrong). Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quigley and LtPowers. Many other rivers, such as the Mekong and Yangtze have local names, sometimes more than one, but they are referred to in encyclopedias by their international names. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The point of the recognizability principal naming criterion is to prefer the name that most readers would use and recognize, and that that is much more important than "official" usage. This is a good example to illustrate that. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose transclu... oh, wait... never mind sorry, I couldn't resist :>) Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Continue to use, and if someone comes up with another good (or even better) example, then I'd be happy to add it, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (1)Born, Fowler & Power: Your arguments, are a content dispute, which isn't the point here. They completely disregard the poll statement.(2)Powers my link to Sue is not an appeal to authority, it is an example of even real world acknowledgement that there is a dispute regarding GangesxGanga. Which is a rare thing for a Wikipedia title. (3)Qug, Blueboar, and WhatamIdoing, do you see my reasoning? There is a live issue on the article talk page regarding GangaxGanges, how do you see this Ganges not Ganga guideline impacting the debate? If it puts its weight behind Ganges, don't you think that is inappropriate? (4)Powers I will give you the diffs regarding the earlier consensus.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If you can get a consensus to change the title of the article, then that title will no longer be a good example of what we are talking about in the policy, and we will willingly remove that example... but as long as the title remains as is, then the example is valid and we will continue to use it. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
(1)Blueboar: You are using a circular argument, Ganga is not good because of what Article titles says, and Article titles is not going to change because Ganga isn't good. It is like a heads I win, tails you loose argument. (2)Quigley: I hope you haven't changed your mind about consensus not being a vote.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Powers and all:Previous discussion here.[8]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to say to me here. You're not interpreting the Ganges move request correctly if you think that the only reason it failed was because of the numerical inferiority of Indian editors; nor are you understanding the workings of Wikipedia correctly if you think that you have or ever had a "consensus" to prohibit Ganges as an example here against the unanimous reasoning of the editors who frequent this talk page and know this policy best. And while you clearly have a post-colonial axe to grind, the M.K. Gandhi move is unrelated to this national varieties of English discussion. Quigley (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Can't think of an example that would be more familiar, nor that would have such persistent POV warriors trying to impose minority usage. — kwami (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All: This was when Ganges not Ganga was taken off, [9] after a long discussion (see link above), this is when Ganges not Ganga was inserted without discussion[10], disregarding earlier consensus to take it off. Quigley: Stop whining. Don't forget the not democracy part here. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

I read the discussion you linked to, and not much (if at all) was dedicated to debating whether Ganges should appear as an example on this page—it was a debate on Ganges vs. Ganga itself, because there happened to be a move request going on at the same time. An editor, as your link shows, took unilateral action to remove the Ganges example during that move discussion. (He, by the way, is recognized by the community as a serial offender against consensus and a difficult proponent of his own point of view) However, that move request failed, so there is no current controversy or dispute. There was not a consensus to remove the Ganges example while there was a dispute; someone just did it. And now you want to remove the Ganges example while there isn't a dispute, while everyone's saying no? What does consensus mean to you? Quigley (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Editors are not actually required to get permission in advance for changes that actually have support of everyone (or nearly everyone). If the re-inclusion did not have consensus—and consensus now, which all that matters—then Kotniski's re-insertion of the example would have been removed. "One person agreed with me briefly last year" is irrelevant: Consensus can change. If there was ever a strong consensus for removal (which I happen to doubt: at best, there was a weak consensus to not name this example during a discussion that might invalidate it), that consensus no longer exists. The policy needs to reflect this year's consensus, not last year's consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I see your points: "then Kotniski's re-insertion of the example would have been removed." part, and consensus can change, so nobody should be holding any position, to keep the flag still there. Quigley ad hominem arguments shouldn't be made. That time, the point argued was whether there was a divided local use, which invariably involved a content dispute. All: What can be done about circular arguments?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yogesh, a quick question... do you disagree with the policy statement "...sometimes a form which represents only minority local usage is chosen because of its greater intelligibility to English-speaking readers worldwide"? Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) There's no circular argument here. There is currently a fairly solid consensus that "Ganges" is the best title for that article. This policy document reflects that consensus both by explaining the principles surrounding that consensus and by listing that article as an example of those principles being applied. If, in the future, a consensus develops that "Ganga" would be a better title, then we would update this document to reflect the change in the consensus interpretation of our article naming principles. Powers T 12:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar:"...sometimes a form which represents only minority local usage is chosen because of its greater intelligibility to English-speaking readers worldwide", would you give me a few other examples for that pl. Actually with search, there should be no surprises and mysteries. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, many a times I miss the colloquialisms used by editors, almost always a google search is all I need to do to understand them. Actually the whole idea of unintelligibility is redundant. We have page redirects to take care for those who are using the search terms they are familiar with. Powers:The argument isn't whether which is better Ganga or Ganges, the issue is that there is a dispute, and of the 3 million article titles in English, this page declaring Ganges not Ganga, is taking sides in a live dispute.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You are avoiding the question... do you agree or disagree with the statement? Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just a quick note - no real comment on the debate. Yogesh, this is English Wikipedia & so it is to be expected that the term used widely in the English-speaking world would often have precedence. I am pretty sure that it is the reverse at Tamil WP etc, and that is fine. I will go away again now ;) - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Powers and Blueboar: It is a circular argument. Ganges does not move to Ganga because national varieties says Ganges not Ganga which is not taken off because Ganga move failed. Blueboar: If the statement means what I understand it to, yes I disagree with it. It is implicit in my reaction above. Sitush we are all discussing English and not Welsh Fortran.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Welsh? There is a Welsh WP, but it would be useless for me as I neither come from there nor speak the lingo. But doubtless the same point I made about English vs Tamil applies there also. BTW, if you disagree with the policy statement then you probably need to take this to another forum because it is a fundamental part governing any decision made here. You need to get the statement changed. Good luck with that. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone might as well be from the Country of the Houyhnhnms, I don't care.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So what you are essentially saying is: "I don't want this example to be in the policy because including it makes it impossible for me to "win" my debate over the title of the article. You stack the deck against me." Yup... when you argue in favor of an edit that goes against current policy, that's what happens. Its like saying "We need to change the WP:Verifiability policy because I want to add something that is not verifiable and the policy makes it impossible for me to do this." It is an argument that is unlikely to win you much (if any) support.
Policy reflects consensus. As multiple RFCs and RMs on the Ganges/Ganga issue show, there is a strong consensus to keep that article at its current title (yes, I know you don't accept that consensus, but it exists). The rational for that consensus is exactly what we outline here in the policy (international English usage should trump local English usage). Change that consensus (ie get the page moved to your preferred title), we will change the policy to reflect that change. We don't really care whether using it as an example makes it harder (or even impossible) for you to do this. As long as the title remains at "Ganges" and the rational behind keeping it there remains "international English usage trumps local English usage" it remains a perfect example. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well as WhatamIdoing put it, consensus can change. Here, there and everywhere. For now happy editing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
True... consensus can change... but there is no guarantee that it will. - "Have fun storming the castle" Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no guarantee it wont.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
True... there is also no guarantee that the Pope won't suddenly convert to Scientology. Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's important to realize what the consensus favors that's relevant to this issue, as it's not just about Ganges v. Ganga. First, there is a view that Ganga should be the title because Ganga is the "official" name. Consensus does not support the view that Ganga is the "official" name - certainly not outside of India, and it's arguable even within India. Second, that view depends on the premise that if something is an "official" name, it should be the title of the respective article. Consensus does not support that view either; there is certainly no support for it in policy or guidelines. Finally, consensus clearly supports the view that the name most commonly used in reliable English sources should be the title, and that's why the title of this article is and should remain Ganges.

I think it's important for everyone to realize that consensus has to change on each of these points before we can say that consensus has changed about this title. Does anyone seriously think that might happen within the foreseeable future? Nothing seems to ever change that dramatically in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully, that does not have to be argued on this page... determining whether there is consensus for a title change has to be determined at the article talk page and at WP:RM ... not here. We can answer policy related questions to help the process... but the final decision is that of the editors at the page itself. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed-wing aircraft

A proposal to change this title, one of our examples, is being made at Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft#Requested_move_2011; it doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:PRECISION

In a recent close at Talk:United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Requested_move_based_on_above_discussion the closing admin stated "Wikipedia's precision and disambiguation guidelines support natural modes of disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation."

Based on this statement, the closer concluded that consensus (meaning that of the community, not those participating, who were in favor of the version with parentheses) was that "United States Declaration of Independence" was a "natural mode of disambiguation" and thus preferred over the parenthetic disambiguation, "Declaration of Independence (United States)".

Does anyone else get that meaning -- from the actual words of WP:PRECISION? Here is what it currently states:

When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "United States Apollo program (1961–75)" over Apollo program (given that the year range refers to the whole of the program, not a portion of it); or "Queen (London, England rock band)" over Queen (band). Remember that concise titles are preferred.

However, because pages cannot share the same title, it is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have another meaning. As a general rule:

  • If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.
  • Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead.

Often there is no alternative to parenthetical disambiguation, and it does have the advantage that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English. On the other hand, such disambiguations may be longer or less natural than an alternate but unambiguous form, when there is one.

Keep in mind that the two titles in question in this case were:

Since neither choice is significantly more concise than the other, the key statements relevant to this particular case in the guideline are:

  1. [Disambiguation] is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses
  2. however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness
  3. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that
  4. [Parenthetical disambiguation] [has] the advantage that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English

Of these, the only statement that might be construed to support the closer's contention that this guideline supports "natural modes of disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation" is (3). But the meaning of that statement, and in particular what is meant by "natural modes of disambiguation", is clarified by the examples, Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, which are disambiguations commonly used in reliable sources. "United States Declaration of Independence" is not commonly used in reliable sources, and does not at all meet the "natural" criteria defined above on this policy page:

titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.

What readers are likely to look for "United States Declaration of Independence" to find the article? Yes, they are also not likely to look for "Declaration of Independence (United States)", but they are likely to look for "Declaration of Independence", which is conveyed only by the use of parenthetic disambiguation. That is, the title United States Declaration of Independence does not "convey what the subject is actually called in English" ("Declaration of Independence)", but Declaration of Independence (United States) does convey that (because it's understood that the United States in parentheses is not part of what it is actually called).

That was the point of the objection. That is ultimately why the majority of those participating in that poll, 7 vs. 4, disfavored it.

On the other hand (1), (2) and (4) all clearly support the opposite notion, that parenthetic disambiguation is preferred over simply adding precision to the name of the topic, unless adding such precision without parentheses results in a "natural disambiguation", like Cato the Elder. That is, (1) notes that the parenthetic form is often used, and that's mentioned first. (2) notes that disambiguation can also be done by choosing a different form in the title, but no preference of that over parenthetic is even implied. (3) points out the advantages of using the parenthetic form.

I put to you two questions:

  1. Any objections to clarifying in the guideline that "natural disambiguation" means "as is commonly used in reliable sources"?
  2. Any thoughts on getting this decision reversed?

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think both kinds of disambiguation have their advantages. The parenthetic disambiguation shows the reader what the subject is most commonly called in English. And the natural disambiguation shows the reader a way that the subject is commonly disambiguated in standard English from similarly named subjects. I don't think one is generally preferred over the other. I think the way to choose between the two kinds of disambiguation is to look at how common the natural disambiguation is in reliable sources. If it is very common, it would be useful to inform the readers about it. If it is not very common, then it would probably be better just to clearly show the common name with a parenthetic disambiguation. I am not sure under which of those the title the "United States Declaration of Independence" falls, but if the move to that title was based on the assumption that Wikipedia prefers natural disambiguation, I think it may be worth it to revisit that naming discussion.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the person who closed the discussion made a reasonable decision. Born2cycle is giving more coherence and unity to the "votes" for renaming than was actually the case. The 7 "votes" in favor of renaming were varied, with some citing COMMMON, others citing NPOV, and others arguing for a different name altogether (simply "Declaration of Independence"). I count 4 coherent "votes" for renaming to the proposed title, 4 coherent "votes" opposed, and a handful of incoherent "votes" that seemed to be arguing something other than the question at hand. Born2cycle made a solid argument for renaming the article, but it was not an argument that was specifically endorsed by a majority, perhaps because it came late in the discussion. Perhaps a new discussion, with Born2cycle's argument made at the start, would create a consensus for change. Also, the assertion that "United States Declaration of Independence" is a less common means of disambiguation than "Cato the Younger" is at least arguable: "Cato the Younger" gets 1,220 hits on Google Scholar while "United States Declaration of Independence" gets 1,160. That's a crude metric, of course, but it suggests that evidence rather than assertions would be useful here. —Kevin Myers 06:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
First, the closer already said he made his decision based on policy guidance, not the count of the !votes. So that's really not relevant. I think we can all agree that the !voting did not provide a clear indication one way or the other. My issue is with the closer's reasoning - in particular the statement I quoted above. I think it's plainly false, if you interpret "natural modes of disambiguation" in a reasonable and consistent fashion with the rest of that section and the entire policy.

Whether the "no consensus" decision is reasonable on some other grounds (as you apparently suggest by seemingly justifying it based on the lack of coherency in a couple of the support votes, a point the closer did not even hint at) is beside the point.

All that should matter in evaluating a close is the reason given by the closer, and whether that is "coherent". That's my issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is a proposal to change or clarify the policy, or a request for decision review? Let's stay on topic. Hesperian 06:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, he did ask two different questions. I think question #2 is easily dispensed with. The closer's reason was perfectly coherent and consistent with policy and really needs no defense. Policy: "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead." The closer's closing summary was an accurate gloss of that statement, and so I see no grounds for reversing the decision. —Kevin Myers 07:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, then you disagree with my analysis above? Or did you read it? Or was I unclear? I even quoted the same line as you just did, (3) in my list. Please address that. But I wrote a paragraph or so about that. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree with your analysis. Sorry, I thought that was clear. I mentioned previously how part of your argument is based on an unproven assertion. And I highlighted "use that instead" because that's the phrase that trumps your argument and justifies the closer's closing statement. If we complete the phrase, "use that instead of ____", what do you think the ____ is referring to? That which was mentioned previously, i.e. your points 1 and 2. The closing admin interpreted this phrase the same way I do, which I think is the plain meaning. We can fine tune the wording now, but I suspect that there's little chance of reversing a decision based on a parsing of a policy that deviates from what appears to me to be the plain meaning. —Kevin Myers 08:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, my dear friend, do you not see that the "use that instead of ____" phrase is fully acknowledged and accounted for in my analysis? I even state, "unless adding such precision without parentheses results in a 'natural disambiguation'". Surely you understand that means the same thing, don't you?

Your reliance on this point indicates you either did not read or did not understand my analysis, which was based on what "natural disambiguation" means, and, in particular, whether "United States Declaration of Independence" is a "natural disambiguation".

Now, if your disagreement with my analysis is on that point, then how about saying that, and explaining what you find faulty in my reasoning? If you would actually quote statements from my analysis with which you disagree, and explain why, then I believe we would come to an understanding - at least an agreement to disagree - much more quickly. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. I tentatively agree with Born2cycle, but I think it worth nothing that "Cato the Whatever" is a useless and potentially deceptive example, because it is not the case that the two topics are most commonly referred to as "Cato" and therefore we have to disambiguate them and we choose to follow reliable sources in doing so. Rather, in this case, we have two topics, one of which is most commonly known as "Cato the Elder", the other most commonly known as "Cato the Younger", and no disambiguation is necessary.

Is there an example where reliable sources both affirm that a term is the most commonly used name of two topics, and offer a commonly used scheme for resolving the ambiguity? If so, then let's hear it; if not, then it is not possible to defer to reliable sources when disambiguating, and this discussion may end. Hesperian 06:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the Catos. To answer your question, the first example that jumped to my mind is George W. Bush, which would presumably be at George Bush if not for his father. But that of course is a very commonly used disambiguation, which makes my point. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Then we have the example of how we disambiguate between all the different people named William Pitt. The most famous are the two who were Prime Ministers: William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (who is frequently referred to as "William Pitt the Elder") and William Pitt the Younger.... but there are others. Some of these we disambiguate by including a middle name (example: William Augustus Pitt... some we disambiguate by using parentheticals (example William Pitt (architect)). The fact is, when it comes to disambiguation, we don't have firm and fast rules... each case is unique. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On the particulars of B2C's question #2, the assertion that "United States Declaration of Independence" is not commonly used in reliable sources is fallacious and was disproven by evidence provided by Jim Wae in the move discussion. The questions whether that is the MOST common name for the document or whether the U.S. DOI is unambiguously the primary topic for the term "Declaration of Independence" are distinct issues, but it is incorrect to claim that the phrase "United States Declaration of Independence" is not common or not a natural language disambiguation. As for question #1, I do not think the policy should indicate a preference for parenthetical disambiguators. The policy currently simply summarizes current practice: disambiguation is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness [emphasis added]. I don't think any clarification is necessary. older ≠ wiser 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy should (and I think does) indicate that there are several ways to disambiguate... all of which are acceptable. Which is best depends on the specific situation and thus can only be determined on an article by article basis. In making that decision, the ideal is to find something that meets with all of our "titling criteria" at once... but (as the policy itself notes) that is not always possible (indeed, it is frequently not possible). We often end up depreciating one criterion in favor of one or more of the others. Which criteria gets depreciated (or which gets priority) is different from article to article... because it depends on any number of specific issues that will be unique to that specific article topic. Ultimately, choosing the most appropriate article title comes down to consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Bkonrad, okay, that's a valid point. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that most people looking for this topic will be from the U.S., and in the U.S. "United States Declaration of Independence" is not "what the subject is actually called". According to "naturalness", we're "expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for"; that's just not it. Coupled with this article's topic clearly being the primary use of "Declaration of Independence", it's a problem.
BB, this problem -- "Which criteria gets depreciated (or which gets priority) ... depends on any number of specific issues" -- and how this often devolves into sophisticated looking arguments that appear to be based on guidelines and policy but are really WP:JDLI rationalizations -- is exactly the one WP:How2title tries to address. It's not perfect either, of course, but at least it's an attempt to provide an objective and relatively deterministic approach to deciding titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That the request to move the United States Declaration of Independence to Declaration of Independence failed while Declaration of Independence remains a redirect to the former is an unfortunate anomaly -- either USDOI should be moved to DOI or DOI should be a disambiguation page or redirect to a disambiguation page. But that anomaly doesn't support moving United States Declaration of Independence to Declaration of Independence (United States). I've yet to see any evidence that readers are experiencing any difficulty in finding the USDOI article. In any case, there is no shortage of anomalies on Wikipedia and IMO it is not worth getting too worked up about or to expend too much time trying to make rules based on exceptional cases. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm convinced, so let's not get hung up any more about that particular title here... the reason I brought the discussion here was to explore whether we need to add some clarity to the current wording at WP:PRECISION, in particular with respect to what constitutes "natural disambiguation". You think it's fine the way it is (current wording quoted at the start of this section), or do you see room for, uh, more precision? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Kevin: The advice at PRECISION directly prefers "natural" disambiguators to parentheticals. As a trivial example, the article is and should be at Paris, Texas, not Paris (city in Texas). Its proper, legal name is "City of Paris", which conflicts with more than a dozen other cities with identical names. The article title of "Paris, Texas" is the invention of the postal service, and we choose it over a parenthetical because it is very common and very natural. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with Kevin on that point too. Everybody is with Kevin on that point. It was never in contention. The issue is not whether a natural disambiguation trumps parentheticals, but it's about what constitutes a "natural disambiguation". "Paris, Texas" is obvious. "United States Declaration of Independence" is not nearly so. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone made the argument very concisely that "United States Declaration of Independence" is not a natural disambiguator at the discussion and therein lies the problem and what should call us to the task of clarification. What exactly do we mean by natural? It is not illogical to think that United States Declaration of Independence is natural—someone reading that title, for example, will immediately understand what the topic of the article is (it is recognizable to that extent), it does not present a grammatically problematic phrase; it is not awkward. But I think when we say "natural" we are (or should be favoring among other naturalness indicators) that while a title may be not the most common name of the topic, it is a title that is actually used in the alternative, enough so that we know it as an alternate title (e.g. H20 verses water). In this particular case, "Declaration of independence'" appears to be a few hundred times more common than "United States Declaration of Independence", indicating that it is not really a recognizable alternate from most people's actual memory, but only understandable as an alternate form because we speak English. So, I don't think there's anything wrong with Neelix' close, but I do think that clarifying what "natural" means, in the way it should be clarified, would in hindsight result in a different conclusion to the discussion. In a sense I am saying that commonality-lite is a necessary ingredient in whether something is natural. I have not yet thought of proposed clarification language (possibly a footnote?), but that's my take on the particular discussion and what it suggests for the policy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    Suggested language (new language underlined; note that the naturalness language tracks the definition used in the front part of the policy page): ...Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness avoid the ambiguity presented by the most common title. Such other title should be a recognized alternate that the subject is actually called in English and, while less common than the preferred title, should not be obscure. If there is such a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger [insert better example], use that instead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there may be confusion about what disambiguation really is, and how useful counting occurrences (e.g. Google hits) is. When you are talking about a unique entity, like a person or a document (as opposed to a class, like "dog"), disambiguation only begins when you have a potentially unique identifier to start with. This would be the case with a name like "John Smith" or "Queen Elizabeth II". They are both intended as unique identifiers but need disambiguation when there are multiple persons with the same name or designation. However, in a book entitled "Queen Elizabeth II", she might actually be referred to as "Queen Elizabeth II" 12 times, "the queen" or "the Queen" 1200 times, and "she" 4000 times. In the case of such anaphoric or exophoric references using a pronoun or a noun phrase with the definite article, dependence on context is inherent, and counting occurrences is pointless. "Queen Elizabeth II" would not be regarded as a disambiguation of "the Queen", even though she is normally so referred to in Britain. Similarly the "Declaration of Independence" is not intended as a unique identifier, even though it is normally so called in the United States. Simply counting the number of times a particular phrase is used to refer to a person is not helpful; otherwise many articles would be called "he" or "the President" or "the Queen", or "the Constitution" - and require subsequent disambiguation. --Boson (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Boson, I don't really know how that is on topic or maybe I'm not catching your thrust. No one is arguing that ambiguous titles need to not be disambiguated, nor that there can't be a unique title in certain contexts that still requires disambiguation because in many other contexts it is ambiguous. That was exactly the problem with just "Declaration of Independence". The issue here is not that disambiguation wasn't needed but the form that disambiguation should take. If you are specifically talking about my assertion, without posting the methodology I used that Declaration of Independence is far more common than United States Declaration of Independence, then of course I used a targeted Goohle Books search—not just "declaration of independence", which would bring up innumerable false positives.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
My point was that (for proper names and other names intended to designate unique entities) for Wikipedia disambiguation rules to kick in, we need to have a candidate name to start with , i.e. a potentially unique name according to the normal rules of the English language community (not the Wikipedia community). Possibly a third of the world's population understand "the Queen" to mean Elizabeth II but that does not mean that "Queen" would be a potential article title that needs to be disambiguated according to Wikipedia rules. By the same token, "the Declaration of Independence" is (arguably) not even a potential name for a unique document (in context, "contract of employment" may also be a unique document), in which case Wikipedia disambiguation rules do not apply. "The Queen", "my elder sister", "he", "they", "the President", "the Constitution", and arguably "the Declaration of Independence" do not fulfil the criteria as potentially unique names. "Elizabeth II" (perhaps often referred to in texts as "the Queen" or "she"), "Mary Smith" (perhaps very often referred to in texts as "John Smith's wife" or "she") are not even potentially unique as headings in an encyclopaedia, even though they are the most frequently used references (not false positives) in texts. The thing can be called "The United States Declaration of Independence". If the United States had several such documents, then we would need to think about Wikipedia disambiguation. Similarly, we do not argue about Wikipedia disambiguation rules for "mother", "president", "queen", etc. Like declarations of independence, contracts of employment, etc. they are so obviously not unique that they would be assumed to designate classes of objects (like the Wikipedia entry on dog), not specific people or documents. So, arguably, the Wikipedia entry Declaration of independence should start "A declaration of independence is a statement or document by which a formerly dependent territory asserts its status as a sovereign state." Actually, I am surprised that there is no such article (even though there is an article entitled Declaration of war). We probably need such an article, as well as appropriate "disambiguation pages", hatnotes, etc.--Boson (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a suitable example is English language and English people. I think we can all agree that both are usually referred to simply as "English"; and that when it is necessary to distinguish between the two, "the English language" is an overwhelmingly common and familiar phrase, and "The English people" is pretty common too. Hesperian 23:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. It provides everything we want in an example I think. The ambiguity is glaring and both natural disambiguator forms are less common than just English but still recognizably very common.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I like it too. I do suggest that we not conflate title with name and a slight tweak to the wording, so maybe something like this:

    Suggested language (new language underlined; note that the naturalness language tracks the definition used in the front part of the policy page):

    ...Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness avoid the ambiguity presented by the most common name. Such other title should still reflect a recognized name that the subject is actually commonly called in English reliable sources and, while less common than the name preferred for the title, should not be obscure. If there is such a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger English language and English people, as opposed to just English, use that instead.

    --Born2cycle (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    I Like the tweaks to the proposed language. However, I think the example does not crystallize the point without more. We should be spoonfeeding here. I think it's better to tell people what the ambiguity is and why it is resolved most clearly, even at the risk of a little length (I also think the use of "English reliable sources" as part of the proposed text, and English as an example, in close proximity to one another, may have a tendency to confuse).

      If there is such a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, use that instead. In this regard, the word English, alone, commonly refers to both English People and to the English language. Because of the ambiguity seen between those two topics, we use the nevertheless common titles, English language and English people, to provide natural disambiguation. On the other hand, for the three major topics "mercury" might refer to, there are no sufficiently alternate common alternate names, so the articles are disambiguated using parenthetical, viz: Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (planet). The last of these has a potential natural disambiguator of Planet Mercury, but it is not commonly used as a an alternate title but simply as a noun phrase.

      --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative approach...

  • .... Such other title should still reflect a recognized name that the subject is actually commonly called in English reliable sources and, while less common than the name preferred for the title, should not be obscure. If there is such a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, use that instead that may be used instead. As an example of how precision is created by using different forms of disambiguation, examine how the articles on the various people named William Pitt are disambiguated: William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham is disambiguated by his title, William Pitt the Younger (Chatham's son) is disambiguated by a commonly used natural designation, William Augustus Pitt is disambiguated by using his middle name, while William Pitt (architect) is disambiguated by a parenthetical that gives his occupation.

To my mind this outlines the various options, but does not imply that one of them is "better" than the others. Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I see what you're getting at in that I was only providing examples for natural disambiguators and not for parentheticals (which really happened because I lost the forest for the trees by not looking at the full paragraph). However, the Pitt example is on an unfamiliar topic, which I think makes it more difficult to understand. I've added a second set of examples for parentheticals to the former examples.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with Fugh about using familiar examples. I like the updated text, though I think it still not clear about exactly where the line is. I mean, why not "Planet Mercury", for example? It would be even better if it clearly explained why Mercury (planet) is preferred to Planet Mercury, since "Planet Mercury" is a fairly commonly used expression the planet is called. I'm not suggesting that article be renamed, mind you, I'm saying it's correctly named, but our guideline could be clearer on why parentheticals are preferred in cases like that. That is, the alternate common form has to be pretty common... --Born2cycle (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    I'm trying to figure out why "Planet Mercury" intuitively feels so wrong to me, and I'm wondering whether it might be that the topic intersection between planet, element and god is so small that reliable sources rarely discuss more than one of them, and therefore have no need to disambiguate. A source might use the phrase "the planet Mercury" but that is just normal sentence construction, not particularly aimed at disambiguation. On the other hand, the topic intersection between English language and English people is large enough that sources commonly need to clarify what they mean by "English", and therefore we are familiar with the use of "English language" and "English people" as phrases deliberately used for disambiguation purposes. Hesperian 02:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't like what I added about planet mercury but I think what I said is essentially correct. No source uses "planet mercury as a title, but there are numerous that write, "the planet Mercury is..." which is why I descibed it as a noun phrase rather than a title. But how about just taking out the planet and just providing the god and the element as the disambiguators to sidestep the issue?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think side-stepping is another way of leaving it unclear. This isn't just about this one case, it's about any case where the phrase in question might seem "natural" in some respect, but isn't what we're talking about. I think I'll make an editable subpage that's transcluded into this talk page that we will use as a sandbox to work out the wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What it means to be recognized

I don't like the proposals involving a requirement that a title be "a recognized name". That's only going to lead to people fussing that "United States Declaration of Independence" (or "cyclosporine") isn't "recognized" by any authority. Titles need to be recognizABLE by our readers, not recognizED by an official source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
At the heart of our naming policy is that we do not use descriptive titles unless the world has not chosen a name (or in this case names) for a topic. If a topic has a name chosen by the world and there is no alternate name chosen by the world, then we use a parenthetical disambiguator. If there is an alternate recognized title that is fairly common, then we can use that as a natural disambiguator. To change that to a recognizable standard, means we would be choosing descriptive titles over actual titles, when an actual title exists but is ambiguous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree with Hesperian that "Planet Mercury" just feels so wrong as a title that it seems misleading to even bring it up as a potential alternative. Like Hesperian, I'm not sure how to articulate the oddness of the name. I think it has something to do with the difference between the description being recognizable as a familiar epithet versus simply being a common descriptor. older ≠ wiser 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, I think I disagree -- if we do not use recognized names, there is a risk of inventing neologisms. I think we do need to use names that are used in reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
+1 --Born2cycle (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"+1" it all you like, but don't think that it would change the result at United States Declaration of Independence any. Powers T 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very common to prepend a geographic or political entity as context for an ambiguous title. I would not want to change this policy in a way that would discourage that "natural mode of disambiguation". Powers T 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad, you've missed my point. A name that is used in reliable sources is not automatically a "recognized" name. The internationally recognized name for a particular drug is Ciclosporin. Ciclospoin is the name officially recognized by the INN. However, four times as many high-quality sources use its non-recognized (American) name, which is cyclosporine. Cyclosporine is a recognizable name, but not a recognized name.
Recognition is an act, and must be performed by an actor. For something to be recognized, it must be recognized by a specific person or group. By saying we must have a "recognized" name, then we are saying that we must use names that are officially approved by some authority (e.g., the agency that determines the names of generic drugs). I don't think this is what you mean to be saying, but it is definitely how some editors will understand that line.
If you actually mean "a name used in reliable sources", then you should say "a name used in reliable sources". If you mean "a name our readers will recognize", you should say "a name our readers will recognize". You should not say "a recognized name" unless you mean to imply that the name should have some 'official' recognition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Good point! --Born2cycle (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I've tweaked the wording at WT:TITLE#Precision and disambiguation accordingly... anything else? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION Current version

This is the current wording of the section we're discussing above and below.

*** PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS SECTION. ***

*Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead.

WP:PRECISION Proposed version

The following section is a transclusion of a subpage, Wikipedia talk:Article titles/precision, which originated as a current copy of WP:PRECISION, and has been pared down to an edited version of the paragraph in question. If you click "edit" on the following header, you will be editing the subpage.

If you are participating here, you may want to add Wikipedia talk:Article titles/precision to your watch list.

*** PLEASE DO EDIT THIS SECTION. ***

Precision and disambiguation

  • If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.
  • When a topic's most commonly used name is ambiguous (can refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, that name cannot be used for the title of that topic's article and so must be disambiguated. This is often achieved by adding a disambiguating term in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of title in order to avoid the ambiguity.

    If the topic has a name (some topics, like List of countries, do not have set names), then any alternative title should still reflect a name that the subject is commonly called in English. While a name may be chosen that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name. Where such an alternate common name exists in standard English, it should be used instead of the most common name, as a "natural" disambiguator.

    For example, the word "English" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternate but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation.

    On the other hand, "mercury" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternate names, so we use instead parenthetical disambiguation: Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (planet). Note that the planet has the potential natural disambiguation title: "planet Mercury". However, although the phrase "planet Mercury" appears in some contexts, it is not what the planet is actually called, so it's not an appropriate title.

    In summary: Use names that are commonly used in reliable sources; do not invent neologisms. For topics without names, like List of countries, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.


WP:PRECISION Proposed version discussion

Explain your edits to the consensus version here.

  • What I'm trying to say with the last sentence --Note that the last of these has a potential natural disambiguator of Planet Mercury, but it is not used as an alternate title as that is not what it is commonly called -- is that "natural disambiguators" should still be what a topic is commonly called, not merely referred to. I refer to my brother as, well, "my brother", but that's not what he is called. Similarly, even reliable sources commonly refer to that planet as "planet Mercury", but that's not what it is called. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, Hesperian, I bet you could pare down this monster and still have it convey as much. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is why I said it was just a noun phrase rather than an actual alternate title. It think that's on the right track, but just needs better language than I used before. By the way, having this trancluded and each person changing it and then explaining each change... this is not conducive and if we weren't far along and not many of us involved, would have killed the discussion. We might muddle through now, but I would personally shoot this format in both knees after a kidney punch.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • How is this less conducive than having multiple versions floating around in various comments? At least this way it's focused in one spot in a format we're all accustomed to - it's like we're all editing the same article. Plus, because it's a subpage, there is the history and the diffs that we also all know and love.

    On to substance - I'm not sure "noun phrase" tells us anything, because a noun phrase may or may not be something the subject is called. I'm tempting to say it has to be a name, but there was some objection to that in the past. One thing I tried to do at WP:How2title is distinguish named entities from unnamed entities. If we did that here, then we could say that named entities must have a commonly used named for their title, or the most common name must be disambiguated with parenthetic disambiguation. It's the unnamed entities, like List of countries in Asia, that have descriptive names that are not names. What we want to avoid is giving a descriptive title to an article about something that has a name, but that name (alone) is unavailable. We should disambiguate that name, parenthetically, not come up with a different descriptive title. How do we say that? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I added a couple of lines incorporating the above point plus something that Bkonrad said earlier, but it needs to be worked in better. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pruned/reworded some too. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this an open party? I found this page, and tweaked the consensus version up there. I broke up a long sentence, and a long paragraph. I also changed a passive-voice verb to active, and made a bit of formatting consistent ("English" and "mercury", instead of English and "mercury".) I hope that's okay. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Some tweaks, which my edit summary describes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • All good improvements. There is an issue with the first sentence as it stands -- Where the name of a topic is ambiguous because it refers to more than one existing Wikipedia article and is not primary. The subject of the sentence is "name of a topic" which "is ambiguous". However, the name of a topic is not what is or is not "primary" - it's the topic that's primary. But that should be easy to fix. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I just made some copy-edits to the first paragraph. Broke up a long sentence, chose a more appropriate verb... nothing controversial, I don't think. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Per the explanation made at WT:TITLE#What it means to be recognized about problem with using "recognized name", I've made some adjustments too. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Last sentence: For articles about topics without names, ... --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • First sentence before: Where the name of a topic is ambiguous because it refers to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia, and the topic is not primary, ....

    After: When a topic's most commonly used name is ambiguous (refers to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, ... --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Change "disambiguating word" to "disambiguating term" because it's not always just a word. One more paragraph break to set off intro of this. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Before: If the topic has a name (some topics, like List of countries, don't have set names), then any alternative title should still reflect a name that the subject is commonly called in English. While we may choose a name that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, we avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, use that instead.

    After: If the topic has a name (some topics, like List of countries, don't have set names), then any alternative title should still reflect a name that the subject is commonly called in English. While we may choose a name that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, we avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name. Such an alternative name is used instead of the most common name as it is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English.

  • Are we ready to integrate this into the actual policy page? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't like something about the tone or tense or person of "While we may choose a name that is less common than the (ambiguous) preferred name, we avoid choosing an obscure name, or making up a new name." Thinking out loud.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I still don't see the point of mentioning "planet Mercury" as I don't think it would ever be seriously considered as a possible title and I'm don't think it is a very good illustration of anything other than a purely hypothetical pedantic point. That is, I don't think it is a very strong illustration of natural language disambiguation. I thought the example using the various William Pitts [11] worked quite well to illustrate most all of the common methods of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Formulaic?

  • I think this version is (at the moment) way more complicated and confusing than the "current" language. I think you are trying to come up with a formulaic "one-size-fits-all" approach to something that does not lend itself to a formula. What I think we want to get across is that a) when more than one topic could be called by the same title, we need to disambiguate to be precise. b) There are multiple ways to disambiguate (parentheticals, commas, using alternative names, using a descriptive title instead of a name, etc.). All are allowed... but deciding which is best will depend on a host of factors that are unique to each article, and that is best determined through discussion and consensus at the article level (with input at the project level). Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It does lend itself to being formulaic - you just have to recognize how the factors are prioritized relative to each other. This is demonstrated in WP:How2title. I've been making my arguments based on that formula in RM discussions lately, and it's quite effective. Definitely needs a few more tweaks, but it does demonstrate that the process does lend itself to being formulaic.

      The alternative is to do as you suggest, which is effectively to provide no guidance at all, because everyone is free to prioritize the factors any way they wish, and vary the priorities according to whim from one decision to the next. That's what I, for one, am trying to get away from, because it makes deciding titles a coin tossing process and ultimately responsible for the unnecessarily long WP:RM backlog. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

      • I don't like the idea of turning it into a deterministic formula, and I don't see the long backlog at RM as necessarily an indication that we need to change how we think about titles. I like that priorities are hammered out, in the field, on a case-by-case basis. The "how2title" essay, IMO, encourages following a formula rather than engaging the mind, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, it still engages the mind, but it's about engaging the mind consistently to discourage arguing factor A is more important than factor B to favor title C over title D, and then arguing factor B is more important than factor A to favor title E over title F.

          The point is that before you can decide on title C or title D, or title E over title F, you have to decide whether to prefer factor A over factor B, or vice versa, and then apply that consistently to both cases. That's the point of WP:How2title. It's about interpreting the criteria as consistently as possible from one case to the next, which, if adopted, should greatly reduce the backlog. That doesn't mean there are no judgement calls, it just clarifies many of the calls. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

          • I'm not sure that reducing the backlog is a goal at all. It doesn't hurt me that it's long. I think that those determinations, of which factor is more important, should be made in the field, on a case-by-case basis, and I don't see any reason that it has to be consistent across all applications.

            Yeah. I disagree that a reduced backlog and a consistent priority order for naming conventions are part of our goal-set at all. If the community decides on consistency, consistently and on a case-by-case basis, then consistency becomes a priority. I haven't seen that happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

            • Reducing the backlog might not be a primary goal, but the size of the backlog is an indication of how much controversy there is about titles, and reducing the backlog size would be an indication of a reduction in controversy. Isn't that a goal... making title decisions less controversial? If not, what's the point of having the policy at all?

              Let me put it this way, isn't providing guidance a goal here? If not, what is the point of, well, policy and guidelines?

              Now, the issue here is deciding what a title should be. We can identify the factors that go into deciding titles, but is that guidance? I mean, when all the factors indicate the same title, the answer is obvious; there is no need for guidance. When guidance is needed is for those cases where some factors indicate one title, and others indicate another title. When that happens, what do we do? It seems to me that that is the question that needs to be answered to meet the goal of providing guidance for the task of deciding titles. And to answer that question, the guidance can and must be more formulaic, as demonstrated by WP:How2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(tangent discussion moved to Wikipedia Talk:How2title#Should deciding titles be somewhat formulaic?)

Let's stay on topic. This is not about how2title. I fail to see how this is formulaic and no one has explained in what way it is. I see this as a clarification of the existing language that better captures what we already practice. In the mix, the idea that we can title "using a descriptive title instead of a name" is not accepted practice and goes against the spirit of the policy as written and as applied. We do not invent titles when topics have existing names; that is not an acceptable form of disambiguation for a topic with a name. In any event, reading the current text and the proposed text, I see little difference in content, but only a clearer voice and better elucidated examples, with explanatory text that will help the many people I see who find this area slippery.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right that this is a bit of a digression about how these criteria are to be applied. But as I indicated above, the present proposed revision does not seem to me to make a very good illustration of natural language disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 03:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a tangent. Good times; thanks for keeping us on-task. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that English → English language / English people is a very good and easily understood example of natural disambiguation and that Mercury is also an easily understood example of a clear case for parentheticals— at least it is using the deity and element. I think I agree though that the planet explanation is a bit off topic and had suggested earlier just taking it out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd support removing the "planet Mercury" bit. That's the part you're talking about, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
We prefer "Mercury (planet)" to "Planet Mercury"... why? There must be a reason. And whatever that reason is, I'm sure it applies to other cases too. We should figure out how to explain it better if you don't like how it's explained now, but taking it out completely means missing an opportunity to clarify how we draw the line between when to use natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation. Or are you implying maybe it should be at Planet Mercury? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is advocating for Planet Mercury as an article title, no. We prefer "Mercury (planet)" to "Planet Mercury" because the latter is ridiculous. Nobody says "planet Mercury", and I don't think most people would consider that as a potential title. The other planets aren't disambiguated that way, either.

We draw the line on a case-by-case basis, and it's okay to just say that. Some illustrative examples are helpful, but we're not trying to list a comprehensive set of precedents for people to follow. All that example does is say that we only use natural language disambiguation if it really is "natural language". It's inherent in the word "natural" that we don't use stilted, little-used phrases that will make people say "what the heck?!". -GTBacchus(talk) 04:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

People do say "planet Mercury", and often in a similar context to saying "Mount Whitney": Look, over there, just over over Mount Whitney, it's planet Mercury. The difference is that "Mount Whitney" is a name - it's the answer to the question, "What is the name of that mountain?". "Planet Mercury" is not the answer to the question, "What is the name of that planet?". That's the difference. And maybe that's how we express it. For named entities, the title of an article has to be a plausible answer to a "what is the name of ..?" question. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, people say it. It's not unheard of. Still it's not, as you say, the name of the planet, and people don't use it as a name. I guess that's what I meant by "nobody says" it. It's not what we call Mercury in natural language. It's not a natural language name for the planet. It's a natural language phrase that refers to the planet, but that's different from a name.

Do we need that example to show that we use the names of things to title articles? That's a pretty fundamental point; is it not made anywhere other than this putative paragraph? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming songs, should the first word in a parenthesis be capitalized?

I've seen the article titles of I'm Holdin' On to Love (To Save My Life) and Thank You Baby! (For Makin' Someday Come So Soon). Although "to" and "for" aren't words normally capitalized in titles because they are prepositions, they are here. It has been brought to my attention that it might be because they are the first words in the parenthesis. I have checked the Wikipedia guidelines for titling and there seems to be no policy for titles that have parenthesis. Something should be done about this. Should they be titled or not? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS#Composition titles: "each word-part of...parenthetical phrases in titles as if they were separate titles (e.g., "(Don't Fear) The Reaper")". So yes. —Andrewstalk 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What he said. I was taught to always capitalize words after parentheses, and MOS:CAPS agrees. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion issue - any remaining objections?

Okay, following Arthur's first suggestion above, the transcluded section in a separate subpage is now directly editable from the main policy page a demo copy of the page. Assuming no one reverts it again, y You can try it for yourself. Just go to Wikipedia:Title#Principal_naming_criteria User:Born2cycle/Titles#Principal naming criteria and have your cursor hover over "Edit". You will see "Wikipedia:Title/PrincipalNamingCriteria" floating above the cursor. Indeed, if you click on "Edit", that's what it will edit.

Presuming we go ahead and do Arthur's move trick above (perhaps by using a subpage named NamingCriteria instead of PrincipalNamingCriteria to not have to worry about deleting the existing one first) to address the lost watchlist problem, are there any remaining objections? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as stated above, editing is "seamless" only from the third level header, not from the second level or from the top of the page. Station1 (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with those raising objections to this change. While there is no change in content, this is a significant change to how an important policy page is organized and maintained and I don't think the objections can be so easily dismissed. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
So, basically, "it's different. I don't like it."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
(after ec) That and I don't think making this page more difficult to edit for the trivial convenience of transcluding the text in an essay is a particularly compelling rationale. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no telling how many more places it would be useful to transclude it (that essay is just one example), and it's not more difficult to edit, but now that it has been reverted, I can't even demonstrate that. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, though that remains to be seen. And you can demonstrate funcionality easily by creating a demo page. older ≠ wiser 02:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. User:Born2cycle/Titles#Principal naming criteria. Check it out. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
And how or why is the not-seamless editing for the other levels a problem at all, much less one big enough to warrant objecting to using the transclusion method? I mean, yeah, if there is some kind of wholesale wording change on the whole page, or that whole 2nd-level section, instead of editing just the one page or the one section, you also have to edit the subpage separately. But seriously, how often does that happen? Once every few years, if that? Don't you agree that over 90% of the edits involve either tweaking the criteria wording, or editing something outside of the criteria wording? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The premise was that editing from the main page would now be seamless. Since that was only partly true, I objected. Non-seamless editing is a problem for the reasons extensively discussed in several sections above. It's not a big problem, but it's big enough to warrant objecting because the benefit is even smaller, imo. I can't imagine any policy or guideline or essay page other than yours benefitting from this at all, and no one has pointed to any such specific page. Station1 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I am still concerned about the edit notification issue... How is someone who has the policy page on their watch list (but for some reason doesn't watch the transclusion page) supposed to know that a change has been made to a section that is central to the policy?
This goes beyond just watch lists... Transcluding affects the edit history of the page as well. I tried editing on your demo page (which I assume is standing in for this page at the moment)... while I could make the change fairly easily, the change I made was only listed in the edit history of the transclusion page, it didn't list it on your demo page. That isn't going to fly if that is what will happen here. If someone makes a change to text that appears on a policy change... the basic fact that the change occurred must show up in the edit history of the policy page itself.... if only so people can find it and link to it in future discussions. Blueboar (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar is right.. edit histories are important. A unified edit history seems like a very good thing for a policy page. The arguments for transcluding part of this policy page don't seem strong enough to disrupt the edit history. Mlm42 (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This is like playing Whac-A-Mole with you guys. A unified edit history seems like a very good thing? How about an edit history specific to the all-important principal naming criteria? Now that is a very good thing. What good is it to have the criteria edits lost among all the other edits of this page?

My point is that are pros and cons, and this particular one is very minor, and a wash between the two approaches. I'm sorry, but these "objections" really do seem to be WP:JDLI arguments that are mostly about being uncomfortable with change, not anything substantive. But I can see how you might not realize that and your objections would seem real and important to you. That's human nature. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say that having an edit history scoped to the criteria seems a lot more useful than being unified. I haven't weighed in previously, but overall this seems like a good idea. One thing that seems suboptimal, though, is that unless I'm mistaken, someone adding the main article to their watchlist will not get the subpage added, and will have no particular way of knowing that they're not seeing any edits to the subpage unless they happen to dig in far enough to see the transclusion, and be technically proficient enough to know what to do about that. Is this the case or has it been overcome in some way? —chaos5023 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I see the messagebox thing up above now. That seems clunky but passable. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I very much disagree... having separate edit histories for different parts of a Policy page is most definitely not a good thing. The edit history of a Policy must be in one single place so people can track and compare all of the the changes that take place on one history page. If the history of one part of a policy is on one page, and the history of another part of it is on a separate page, this can not be done.
To give you an example... Suppose you have been away from the policy page for a while (say on vacation). When you return you might want to review what has changed in the policy since you left (I know I would). At the moment, this is very easy... you go to the edit history, and compare the diff between the last date you saw the policy and the current version... and poof... you get two side by side windows, with all of the changes highlighted. You can not do this if you have different parts of the policy housed on separate pages. There is no way to generate a diff comparison when some changes are made at one page, and others are made at another. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
More Whac-A-Mole? Really? How many pages which are so important to you that you check them that way after coming back from vacation? Just one? Two? Maybe half a dozen? All this means is you would add one more -- the principal naming criteria -- to that list. It's causing you to do no more than what you already do when you become aware of a new page that you want to care about that much. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, anyone who went on vacation on, say, July 1, would presumably come back and do a diff, seeing prominently near the top the replacement of the criteria with the transclusion to the new sub page, alerting them to add that to their watch list, if specific changes to the criteria is something they want to watch. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have around 25+ policy/guideline pages that I routinely watch (I am a bit of a policy wonk), along with about 50 articles. When I return from vacations, I check all of them for changes. But that is me, and I do understand that the burden may be smaller (or larger) for other editors.
Dismissing legitimate concerns as "Whac-A-Mole" isn't going to convince people that their concerns are unjustified. If anything it is going to make them more resistant to the idea. I will try to overcome that reaction. This may seem like a Whac-A-Mole game to you, because you are the one having to respond to questions and concerns... but for me it is all part of the same learning and thinking process. As we have discussed how transclusion works, and how it affects the pages involved, I have had concerns. You have been able to put to rest some of my concerns, but not all of them. The problem is that as we go along, I keep discovering new concerns that I was not even aware existed when we started this conversation.
My latest concern (not having a unified edit history) is a fairly major stumbling block for me. I really feel it is important for a page to have one single unified edit history (where all changes, to all sections of the page, appear and can be tracked)... ESPECIALLY when it comes to policy pages. I think it is a huge mistake to have multiple edit histories, located on different pages. I have given you one reason (and an example) for why I feel this way... I could come up with other reasons and other examples (some of which I have not even thought up yet) but you would probably just think that was more Whac-A-Mole.
Essentially, you keep responding to my concerns with "It will all be fine, trust me"... I need more than that. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The transcluson bit is pretty unusual. I lean towards opposing it. IMO, our fellow Wikipedians would prefer to be trusted with keeping two main policy pages updated to mirror changes more than they prefer to watch an unconventional subpage. Don't get me wrong, I highly appreciate the intent to automate certain things here, but it's so unconventional that I estimate that this subpage does more harm than good. BigK HeX (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can keep me on the list of people opposed to this. I see no benefits to anyone except the proposer, and I see costs borne by everyone.
If this subject matter were something that we needed on multiple, major advice pages—if we had an actual, documentable problem with keeping pages synced—then I would be supportive. But we don't have that problem. We have one editor wanting to restructure the page by way of saving himself maybe two minutes a year (=the amount of time it would take him to paste a fresh copy of any updated text into his page every now and again). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, I think this transclusion should be reverted. The more low-impact approach would be to create a bot that sync's the target page that he wants with the main policy page. BigK HeX (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Is there a way to write some code (not necessarily a bot, maybe a template to be put on the new subpage or directly in the essay) that could copy the relevant section (or just the 5 bullets) off the policy page and place it in the target page -- in other words, basically reverse direction from what is proposed here? Station1 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, reading WP:TRANSCLUSION, if <onlyinclude> </onlyinclude> tags were placed above and below the 5 bullets, they could be transcluded to the essay or anywhere else. The downside is that if anyone ever removed the tags, the whole page would be transcluded, but maybe a hidden comment could be added. Just a thought. Station1 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Will using "onlyinclude" resolve the problem of edits to the transclusion page not showing up in the edit history of this page... if so, the idea sounds promising. I'd love to see a demo. Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Edits would take place only on this page, just as they always have been. A transclusion template would be placed on the other page(s). Any changes to the bullets would be transcluded from this page to the essay or other page, rather than to this page from a subpage. Station1 (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Transcluding the entire page into the other page, but limiting what is transcluded with "onlyinclude" works but is not a good general solution since it limits what can be transcluded to only that which is so tagged. However, the need and utility of a general solution, if it exists, is apparently not recognized at this time. Even I can't think of any particular case for transcluding anything on this page other than the principal naming criteria.

Since the page is locked from editing, can some admin please add <onlyinclude> </onlyinclude> tags around the principal criteria section as I did on the test page in my user area[12]? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've unprotected for now in the hopes this will turn out to be a good compromise. If the edit warring continues, I'll reprotect immediately. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I've made the change[13] which has no effect on the content of this page or how it works. None of the objections and concerns that applied to the subpage transclusion method apply here. I will also have the subpage I created earlier deleted. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I've raised a related broader issue - about using transclusion in general on policy pages -- at Wikipedia_talk:Transclusion#Breaking_up_policy_pages_into_transcluded_subpages, in case anyone is interested in following it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
My experience has been the same as Blueboar's and I agree with his arguments. On top of that: the only point in a transclusion is to allow the text to change automatically on another page (probably a naming convention page) whenever the text has changed here. Has anyone on any guideline page agreed to permanently cede control of the relevant text on that page to whatever gets decided here? Nothing that we argue on this page can create permission to change a different guideline or policy page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
But if another guideline needs to refer to something on this page, currently it can do it with a link to this page or to a particular section. But in any such a case it might be even more useful to actually transclude the text being referenced into the guideline referencing it. Here is a list of links to this page from within WP space. I'm sure some of those could be improved with transclusions from this page. Using a transclusion of the actual text does not change the meaning of something that references that text. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If all of these pages wanted to quote the same section of the policy (say they all wanted to quote WP:COMMONNAME), I could see transclusion being helpful... but what is more likely is that each will will want to quote different sections of the policy (one quoting from WP:COMMONNAME, another quoting from WP:POVTITLE, a third quoting from WP:UE, etc etc etc). If just 10 of these used transclusions from this page, we could easily end up with 10 separate and disjointed transclusion pages... magnifying the problems we have already discussed. Notification and tracking of changes would require watching 10 separate subpages pages instead of just the policy page itself. The edit history of the policy page would now be spread over 10 subpages instead of unified on just the policy page itself. Indeed it is possible (although probably unlikely) that a policy page would consist entirely of a string of transcluded paragraphs and sections... which would mean that the policy page itself would effectively have no edit history at all.
While we should not completely rule out transclusions on policy pages... but we should strongly discourage them. At a minimum, I think we need a strong consensus that there is a real need to transclude (such as multiple policy/guideline pages all needing to quote the same policy/guideline statement) before we allow it. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Selective Transclusion - works!

I'm still not convinced it's necessary, but I've figured out how to do selective transclusion and can demonstrate with the demo page, User:Born2cycle/Titles, which is essentially a copy of this page.

Here are the basic instructions, along with some explanation of how and why it works.

Selective Transclusion

Selective transclusion is the process of transcluding only part of a page. If only one section of a page is to be transcluded, this can be done by simply surrounding the section of interest with <onlyinclude> </onlyinclude> tags, and transcluding the whole page. But if you want to transclude one section into one page, and another section into another page, that's selective transclusion, and you need a way to uniquely mark each section to be transcluded, and a way to specify which section you want to transclude.

So, the key is to think of a section name for each section you want to transclude, and add the following line at the beginning all such sections, substituting SECTIONNAME (twice) with the unique name of your section:

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|SECTIONNAME}}}|SECTIONNAME|

First, by adding an <onlyinclude> tag to the file that means anything that transcludes will see only what is inside <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags.

Second, the "ifeq" statement checks for a parameter named transcludesection. If it doesn't find one, it sets it to the default value of SECTIONNAME - this is so that the section will be displayed when the document is normally/directly viewed. In any case, it checks to see if transcludesection is is equal to SECTIONNAME, and, if it is, it renders the text that follows up to the next double-curly brace. Thus, the text will be rendered if the parameter is not originally set, or if it is set to that section name.

For example, if we want to transclude the principal criteria section, we just add this above the first line to transclude:

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|principalcriteria}}}|principalcriteria|

And, above the common name section, we put this:

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|commonname}}}|commonname|

Also, each such transcludable section needs to end with this:

}}</onlyinclude>

That's it! Then, to transclude the principalcriteria section from another page, use the following line, substituting FILENAME for the document to be transcluded and SECTIONNAME with the name of the section you want to transclude:

{{FILENAME|transcludesection=SECTIONNAME}}

So, to transclude the principal naming criteria section from the demonstration page in my user space:

{{User:Born2cycle/Titles|transcludesection=principalcriteria}}

Or, to transclude the common name section:

{{User:Born2cycle/Titles|transcludesection=commonname}}

Of course, the same page can translude two or more sections this way by including multiple such lines. There is no limit to how many selectable sections for transclusion a document can have. The only requirement is that each be given a unique keyword name.

A sample document - a copy of WP:AT - containing marked sections is here: User:Born2cycle/Titles. You can diff it with this page to see what was added to implement this. A simple test that transcludes both sections from this page, but rendering common names before principal naming criteria to demonstrate that each is selected separately, is here: User:Born2cycle/testtranscluder. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also created a template that allows you to easily and reliably transclude the WP:TITLE's principal naming criteria anywhere by simply using {{Principal Naming Criteria}}. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Does it resolve everyone's issues? You can quote things from this page in your essay and have them update automatically... while we can still have all the editing related functions (actual editing, watch list notification, unified edit history, etc.) all on this page? If so, great! Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep. The only effect on this page is the addition of some comments and tags that have no effect on how the policy is displayed or works in terms of watchlists, edits, history. And it is transcluded not only in my essay, but can be from anywhere, just by entering {{Principal Naming Criteria}}, like this:
  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.)


Now, any updates to the criteria on this page (WP:AT) will be instantly reflected here on this talk page, and any other place it's trancluded. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, no it does not work since it prevents the easy use of {{subst}}. The assumption here is that wherever this is used, we always want the latest copy of the text. In the case of this discussion we really want this to be the version that was in place when the nomination was made. If we 'sell' the position that we can use the template, it will get included in places where the use of the current version is critical for discussions. We don't want a version that can shift over time. If keeping the the template is consensus, then the best solution might be to generate an error and only transclude on talk pages and only in the Wikipedia name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No such assumptions are made. It does not prevent the use of {{subst}}. Here I'm using {{quotation|{{subst:Principal Naming Criteria}}}}:

{{quotation|{{Wikipedia:Article titles|transcludesection=principalcriteria}}}}

I just changed it (by adding "subst:") at the Fixed-wing aircraft discussion too. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Although substitution was already covered there, I just updated the documentation at TEMPLATE:Principal Naming Criteria to explain this better, hopefully. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you actually look at what the subst generated? It still only links to the current version of the page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course. It substitutes the version that is the latest at the time of the substitution. But if you now go and change the criteria, it will not be reflected there or anywhere else where it is substituted, but will reflect the current version with latest changes anywhere it is transcluded. This is fundamental to substitution vs. transclusion. What do you expect, that it will substitute some previous version? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. I see the problem. It's caused by a double substitution, so the temporary work-a-round is to use {{quotation|{{subst:Wikipedia:Article titles|transcludesection=principalcriteria}}}}:
  • Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
  • Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
  • Conciseness – titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer.
  • Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.
I'll find a better solution. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a snarky comment - If something requires lots of "temporary work-a-rounds" in order to work... Is it really that practical or useful? Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Come on, man, give me a break. I'm not a template expert (though I'm getting there fast!). It was a problem inherent with trying to do double substitutions for which there is a known solution. I just had to find it. Anyway both transcluding with {{Principal Naming Criteria}} and substituting with {{subst:Principal Naming Criteria}} now work as expected:
Transcluding:
  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.)
Substituting:
  • Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
  • Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
  • Conciseness – titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer.
  • Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.
--Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

linking to essay

I have removed a link to Born2Cycle's newly written essay WP:How to Determine a Wikipedia Article Title in the See Also section (link added by Born2). I think adding it was premature. I don't have any problem including essays in the See Also section, but they do need to have some degree of consensus before we do so. At the moment, Born2's essay essentially only reflects one editor's views. So far, it has gained very little actual support (and some serious criticism). In fact, unless it does gain some support, I think there is a realistic possibility that it could be moved to User Space as a "personal essay". ... In any case, I don't think it should be added yet. It needs a lot of work and more people saying "yeah, I basically agree with this" before we add it. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, can you point to anything actually in the essay (quote please) taht represents a view that is not reflected in, or supported by, this policy? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
While it's kinda complicated to read, it reflects fairly well how I usually think about naming issues myself. I don't see anything in it which goes against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on naming of article. The main point of the criticism which I see on its talkpage is that seems too formulaic and bureaucratic, which I could understand as criticism if it was proposed to become a guideline. But as it is, it's just a suggestion on how to structure one's thinking on naming issues so that it may lay emphasize on what is important according Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a work in progress and could use improvement I'm sure I can't even imagine (and hopefully someone will do it), but let's not forget that it is an essay and what that means:

Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.

Essays are not required or expected to be consensus, so I don't see why the question of consensus (a supposed lack of which is the reason given for removal of the link to it) is even an issue with respect to whether it should be listed. I think it's appropriate to list it here because 1) it is intended to be a supplement to this very policy, and 2) I would hope that some of the editors who come to this page and see it listed are inspired to improve it and maybe eventually it will be consensus. Of course that can't happen if it's not listed which kind of creates a Catch-22 situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The way to get around the catch-22 is to leave notification that the essay exists on the talk page (and at places like the Pump) inviting them to comment and edit. Again, my objection was to adding it at this point in time... not to adding it at all. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But the basis of your objection to linking it is that it lacks consensus, which is like rejecting an apple to make apple juice because it doesn't taste like an orange. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I am probably using the wrong word when I talk about "some degree of consensus"... because the word "consensus" has wiki-meaning and implies at least a significant majority of the community is in agreement, which (I agree) is not needed for an essay to exist. Essays can (and often do) express the viewpoint of the minority.
What I am trying to get at is this... Anyone can write an essay to express their personal views about a policy. In order to include a link to such an essay in a policy page, I think the essay should represent more than just one editor's personal views... it should represent the views of a reasonably large group of editors. That group can be the minority... but it still needs to be a group and not just one individual. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If it were identified as the viewpoint of Born2Cycle (B2C's views on titles?), I might support the link. Having them in one concise place would be a help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
First, an essay is by definition an expression of a viewpoint. In general, I don't understand why there should be any requirement other than the topic of the essay being related and relevant to the policy in question to link to it on that policy page. Second, this particular essay is essentially a guide for deciding titles based on what this policy says. Another editor already said it also reflects how he generally decides titles. I don't how or why it reflects only my view or that of anyone else. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle, I support the idea behind this essay, as you've recently stated it at H2T's talk page. I think there's something to develop there, but it's not ready for linking from a policy page. Let's get it ready, and then do that. A good sign that it's ready is that someone else links it from the policy page. That's what you're going for; it actually sticks. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, GTB raises a good point. The primary creator of an essay probably shouldn't be the person to link it to other pages. It does create something of a conflict of interest. I agree that it would be best practice to let someone else do it. Again, my objection is not to linking per se... but to the timing. Give it time to gain some support... so it represents more than just one editor's viewpoint... then one of those supporters can link it. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You guys are rationalizing rules out of thin air. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no precedent for this reasoning regarding primary creators of essays and adding links about them on the policy pages that they address. I developed that essay in my own user space starting months ago. I put it into WP space when I thought it was ready. By ready I mean it "works" for most proposals that come up at WP:RM. It will never be perfect -- applicable to every single discussion -- but it will probably always be in a state where it could be improved. However, there is a challenge, in that making it applicable to more situations also probably makes it longer and more complicated. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't always base my opinion on "the rules"... I am giving my personal opinion as to why I don't think we should link to your essay at this time. I simply don't think it is appropriate to do so (yet). If you want to make a "rules" debate over this... I can do that too. Lets start WP:CONSENSUS ... Since ultimately every change or addition made to a policy page should reflect broad based consensus, I am questioning whether including a link to your essay at this time has such a broad based consensus. My policy based rational for questioning this is that I believe your essay still falls under WP:NOT#ESSAY, which says: Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. I think your essay still falls under the category of "Personal essay". Work on it some more, and that will change. At which point we can discuss whether to link to it in the policy or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal??? What is personal about it??? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In particular, it reflects your personal bias against "City, Location"-style titles. Powers T 18:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a quotation supporting your claim, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
"The subject is called 'Pekina', period. The fact that additional qualifying information, specifically some reference to the area that it's in, is often used for context does not make that additional qualifying information part of the name." This is purely opinion and is not supported by site-wide consensus. Powers T 15:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL, that's not what the essay says per se, but just happens to be a point made in an example provided to illustrate how RM discussion arguments can be made based on the principal naming criteria, it was not meant to be an endorsement of everything said in that (or any other) example! But I can take it out. Anything else? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in the essay that applies specifically to Cities or to any particular group of articles. It's purposefully thought-through and written to be general and all-encompassing. There's nothing personal about having the essay reflect policy which calls for avoiding unnecessary precision. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The bias is reflected in the commentary about application of naming conventions at what you see as the wrong point in the process. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The "personal" aspect is more fundamental than that... the essay reflects your personal view that WP:Article titles can (and should be) be reduced to a step by step formula, that is applicable to all articles. What I would like to see before we link to the essay is some sense that this is a view that is shared by someone other than yourself (and preferably more than just one other person). Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
One common way of 'advertising' essays is to link them under ==See also== or in a navbox on related essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What does Conciseness mean?

The issue of the meaning of the Conciseness criterion is being discussed in a subsection of an AN discussion here. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-churn provision?

Maybe we need a provision to say that titles shouldn't be changed just to get a small improvement in one of conciseness, recognizability, consistency, etc., unless there's a good reason. This could knock down the amount of churn and noise that B2C generates. Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not involved in the Gandhi discussion at all until it was closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, article titles should be changed for small benefeits; given redirects, small benefits are what is attainable. Advice against seeking trivial or disputable benefits would be useful in Utopia; but here nobody will admit that her improvement is trivial or questionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conciseness and natural - clarification of what they mean

Per the suggestion of several people, including the admin who closed the above referenced AN discussion, I'm bringing this issue to this talk page.

Based on the AN discussion mentioned/linked above, I have formulated the True/False statements below for anyone who is willing to participate. My main concern is that apparently very different interpretations exist regarding two criteria, and how they apply to various situations. So I'm curious how everyone interprets and applies them in these situations too. If these criteria are not understood the same by all of us, we won't have much of a chance achieving consensus regarding how they are applied and weighed. So, the statements below are based on the following criteria which is listed at WP:TITLE:

  • Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
  • Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
  • Conciseness – titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer.
  • Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.

Survey

Just list the statement numbers and for each either a T if you think it's entirely true, otherwise an F. Of course, any clarifications you think might be necessary are welcome.

  1. Readers are more likely to search for the article about Gandhi with "Gandhi" than with "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", AND, therefore, per the Natural criterion "Gandhi" is preferred to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi".
  2. Because readers will not be astonished by either title ("Gandhi" or "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi") both are "natural" and therefore, neither is preferred over the other with respect to the Natural criterion.
  3. Per the Concise criterion George H. W. Bush is preferred to George Herbert Walker Bush because "Titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer."
  4. Per the Concise criterion there is no preference between George H. W. Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush because both are full names of people and thus are concise and, so, both meet the Concise criterion.
  5. Per the Concise criterion there is no preference between Gandhi and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi because the former is obviously concise (so short) and the latter is a full name of a person and therefore concise too, and, so, both meet the Concise criterion.
  6. Per the Concise criterion Gandhi is preferred to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi because "Titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer."

Finally, a question... do you think we need to make any changes/clarifications to how we explain what the Concise and Natural criteria mean? If so, what do you suggest?

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Survey

First, "Shorter rather than longer" does not necessarily mean "shortest possible"... Second, Conciseness (like all of our criteria) has to be balanced against the other criteria. These are broad principles... NOT firm and fast "rules". Which of these broad principles is given more or less weight changes from article to article. Each article is a unique situation... Sometimes the principle of conciseness will be given more weight and is the key to determining the best article title... but at other times it is given hardly any weight at all, and one or more of the other criteria is the key. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All of which could be put in quotations from this policy. We may wish to adopt Blueboar's phrasing; hr hsd been more conscise. Other than that, we need merely encourage B2C to read the whole page, and not just choose the sentence which serves his Crusade of the Week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that, within reason, any person's full name, or as much of it as they normally use, is adequately concise. We might choose a shorter version for a particularly long name (I'm glad that the article about Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos (et omnes sancti) de Borbón y de Grecia is at Felipe, Prince of Asturias), but in general, concision is not a significant factor with people's names. Other factors, such as the name preferred in reliable sources and the name that readers will expect to find the article under (Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton), are IMO more important. I doubt that any person encountering the article on MK Gandhi will be astonished to learn that he had a first name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you guys not understand that "per the X criterion A is preferred over B" does not mean "A is preferred over B"? Analyzing each criterion independently with respect to what it prefers in a given case independent of the other criteria (and then, separately, later, consider all those preferences in aggregate relative to each other, adjusting weights as appropriate) is not a method invented nor used exclusively by me. This is what GTB did in his analysis of the Gandhi move. If you truly have a problem with such an approach, why not take it up with him? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) (edited for clarity --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
What makes you think we have a problem? You asked us a question and we answered it with our opinions. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought you had a problem since you did not answer T or F to each of the statements in the survey. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I also thought you had a problem since you apparently felt the need to explain that "Shorter rather than longer" does not necessarily mean "shortest possible" and that "Conciseness (like all of our criteria) has to be balanced against the other criteria". Is there anything I've written that prompted you to think that needed to be explained? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's see: You asked us to respond to oversimplified, decontextualized questions in ways that could be misunderstood, are likely to be taken out of context, and admit for no nuance or complexities in a policy that is all about nuance and complexity. In short, you asked for responses that would likely add to, rather than reduce, confusion. Three editors declined to contribute to confusion, but we tried to provide appropriate and relevant information about what we knew and believed to be the community's usual practice and policies. Do you have a problem with our goal of not increasing confusion? (I readily concede that the responses will not be helpful to you, if your only goal is to find further ammunition for contesting the one page move, but I'd assumed that wasn't your primary goal.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand how those questions are oversimplified or decontextualized. We're talking about the very same issue that GTB was dealing with in his decision, which I presume we all read. Maybe that's my mistake? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I know that you don't understand how answering these simple questions could be misunderstood. You aren't cynical or paranoid enough to see the potential for problems in the questions that you sincerely meant to be plain, honest, and straightforward. I could attempt to explain why shunning your true-false questions is a rational and even predictable response from the couple of policy geeks that replied to you, but it would probably both waste time and leave you even more frustrated. I suggest that you let it go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We agree, I think, that if concision were the only consideration, Gandhi is shorter, and would be preferred. We also agree that it isn't the only consideration. So what is all this in aid of? To say that Bacchus should have said that is a samll difference between one full name and another? Perhaps he should, but he would have reached the reached the same closure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My favorite example of how Consision works (and works in conjunction with the other criteria) is our choice of Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) over the "official name" of the subject: The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America. Neither Title choice is really "concise", but the chosen title is certainly more concise than the "official name" choice. And while we might be able to come up with further options that are even shorter, using them would loose naturalness, recognizably, and precision (consistency isn't an issue in this example). Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Made a bold edit

I just edited the concision criterion, and then I noticed this discussion here. Perhaps it's clearer now?

I think it might be a good idea to reiterate on the policy page that these criteria are not rules, but observations of criteria that Wikipedians seem to use in the field. We could also note that the list is not exhaustive. Another point would be that the criteria do not have well-defined relative weights, because some will outweigh others in some situations, but not in others. The specifics are decided by Wikipedians, in context, and decisions that we make the same way over and over again are eventually distilled into principles and recorded here. Any thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit seems good to me. As for reiteration... the text currently states (bolded here for emphasis):
  • Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another. Consensus on entitling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, is stated and explained on the guideline pages referenced. When no consensus exists, it is established through discussion, with the above principles in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.
Is this not enough? Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
That is pretty good, I reckon. Hopefully it's clear enough that "with the above principles in mind" doesn't mean that the criteria are necessarily the factors used to decide the title. We keep them in mind, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them. Ultimately, consensus decisions take priority over anything written on this page - with the caveat that a local consensus does not overrule a global one. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see

There's a new discussion about the capitalization of article titles at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Original titles for works in foreign languages. As it has already been moved, please join the discussion there. Specifically, the question is whether a non-translated, non-English book title should be capitalized according to the rules of the non-English language, or the usual English-language rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed the link to the same discussion at WP:Manual of Style, since it has already received some input. I'll remove the other one to avoid confusion and discrepancy. T.W. (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about recognizability and naturalness

What's the practical difference between recognizability and naturalness? They both have to do with WP:COMMONNAME, it would seem, as well as the Principle of Least Astonishment. Can anyone provide an example where these two criteria indicate different titles? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

One deals with what sources use, the other with what readers expect. Perhaps new names, or a merge, are in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, how do we decide what people expect? We look at what sources use, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about reorganziation

I find this page to be a bit sprawling and random, and I'm thinking of ways to organize it. One idea, which Born2cycle and I have both been mulling over, is for the page structure, or at least part of it, to reflect the 5 naming criteria. I'm imagining something like:

  • Deciding on an article title
    • Recognizability
    • Naturalness
    • Precision
    • Concision
    • Consistency
  • Other sections
  • Other sections, etc.

The general "Deciding on an article title" lists the criteria, as it currently does, and then we'd have subsections going into more detail about each one. Some of those we've already got, in one form or another. In particular, the "Common names" section addresses the first two criteria, the section on Precision addresses that criterion, and the section about explicit naming conventions speaks to the Consistency criterion.

Another point: we've got sections addressing neutrality in titles, but neutrality is not listed as one of the Primary Naming Criteria. Should it be? I think it would be an accurate observation that neutrality is a criterion that Wikipedians use in titling questions.

Well, I guess I've said a lot of stuff now. Any thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  • That was pretty much how it was structured when the five principles were first stated explicitly. The objections were that the first section was too short and that the others didn't classify neatly into five groups. They still don't; Common Name bridges two.
  • No, neutrality is not a principle; it only applies to descriptive titles. If we lay more stress on it, we will get more of: "You have to title the page Our Way; that's Neutral." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't object... but consider that the section on neutrality is directly related to WP:COMMONNAME (if something has a wp:commonname, we use it even if it seems non-neutral to do so) ... so perhaps the neutrality section should be a sub-section of WP:COMMONNAME (ie move its header and sub-headers up one class). Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I put the neutrality section subordinate to "Common names", moved "Precision" up the page, and made a couple of sections subordinate to "Article title format". I may want to do more, but how is it so far? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of edits

Okay, very little content has changed, but a lot of sections moved. That makes it a little tricky to see just what changed. Here are the content changes since I started this section:

  • Kotniski changed "concision" back to "conciseness".
  • Marcus Qwertyus updated an example in the "Precision and disambiguation" section.
  • GTBacchusHey, that's me! added a header grouping the UE and ENGVAR sections under English-language titles, and wrote and edited some introductory copy.

Everything else is just shuffling of sections. The easiest way to see all the changes is to compare the tables of contents before and after. I don't think I've got any more big edits in the wings, so I'm ready to sit back and see what others do with it. I like that there are fewer top-level headers, anyway.

Regarding the question of sections explicating each of the 5 criteria: It seems that Recognizability and Naturalness are discussed under "Common names", and perhaps under "Article title format". Precision has its section, Conciseness doesn't really need one, and Consistency is addressed by "Article title format" and "Explicit conventions". I don't think the relation of each criterion to the rest of the page needs to be made more explicit, or would that be helpful? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Considering title changes"

The policy says: "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." That sounds great, but isn't political and moral "rightness" precisely why we've got an article at Burma and not at Myanmar? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, Burma is common usage (per the BBC and others). I believe it depends what country you're from - Americans seem to think that Myanmar is more common.--Kotniski (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember that the decision hasn't been based on COMMONNAME, but on the apparent illegitimacy of the current government. If that's the case, then we might want to let this page reflect that we sometimes do choose names for political reasons. Then again, I'm reading over the last move request, and it doesn't boil down neatly to any particular argument. That said, lots of people in that discussion cite political reasons for preferring "Burma". -GTBacchus(talk) 20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The Burma/Myanmar controversy is extraordinarily exceptional. Policy should be based on the norm that applies to the vast majority of cases; it can't possibly cover every last IAR exception. Station1 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt Kotniski's generalization; some Americans favored Burma as usage - although the only actual reliable source was the BBC.
We have moralists on both sides, as often on geographic questions; the "junta are scum" people are countered by the "Myanmar has a right to self-determination" people. This may, outside Wikipedia, have an influence on what usage is; but, as usual, the decision between two contending poles of virtue was to follow usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Best to let sleeping dogs be on that one. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

naming of scripts

There's a discussion on naming scripts here. At issue as I see it is whether we use the word "alphabet" for scripts that are familiar or prestigious, for all segmental scripts, or only for 'true' alphabets. I don't much care as long as it isn't the first (Hebrew 'alphabet' but Phoenician 'script', or Western 'alphabets' and Eastern 'scripts', etc).

I think if we decide to be consistent, it should be summarized in our naming conventions somewhere, though I'm not sure where. NC (languages) seems to be the closest. At one point we had decided to call everything apart from Greek-type 'true' alphabets 'scripts', but as one editor put it, good luck trying to move Hebrew alphabet and Arabic alphabet back to that name.

(For those who aren't familiar with the terminology, Greek, Hebrew, and Thai are all "alphabets" in the broad sense. This is defined by having letters that transcribe individual segments (consonants and/or vowels), as opposed to scripts like Japanese kana and Cherokee which do not. There is a narrower and more specialized use of 'alphabet' to mean Greek-type scripts which give consonants and vowels equal status, as opposed to writing vowels with diacritics or not at all. In this convention, Greek is a 'true' alphabet, Thai is an abugida (writes vowels with diacritics), and Hebrew is an abjad (doesn't write vowels). The broad sense may be justifiable per COMMONNAME, the narrow sense per academic precision. (In an even broader sense, any writing system may be called an "alphabet", but there has never been support for being that imprecise on WP.) — kwami (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussions centered on deciding terms based on neutrality

These two discussions are both about how we decide what terms to use based on neutrality, in case anyone is interesting in reading, or contributing to, the discussions.

The first one is not an RM or title discussion, but it's about how to decide whether to use the most commonly used name, or a more neutral term, in article content, and much of the discussion arguably applies to neutrality judgments in title selection as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

applying COMMONNAME

In the interest of making the determination of the common name easier, can't we give some weight to what name people type in the Search box when they're looking for an article? This statistic, if we're able to collect it, should count for something, shouldn't it? --Kenatipo speak! 19:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be useful, but would need to be interpreted with caution. There's no easy way to know, for example, whether people found the article they were looking for. Jakew (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:PRECISION, version 2.0

Higher up on this page a proposed rewrite of WP:PRECISION was discussed. That discussion is now quite sprawling, including off-topic section discussions (and appears stalled), so I think we need a fresh start. I think some good clarification ideas emerged. However, proposed language was addressed only to an existing portion of the policy section, and when I took a look at how it would appear integrated into the whole section, it just did not work: Too verbose; not flowing; hard to follow. I have taken what was done, tried to keep the sense and clarity of the language proposed, but tighten it up a lot and reorganize and format for understandability, as well as clarifying the surrounding language. Below is a collapsed box containing the current language of WP:PRECISION for comparison, and below that, the proposed rewrite.

Existing text of WP:PRECISION
Shortcuts

When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "United States Apollo program (1961–75)" over Apollo program (given that the year range refers to the whole of the program, not a portion of it); or "Queen (London, England rock band)" over Queen (band). Remember that concise titles are preferred.

However, because pages cannot share the same title, it is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have another meaning. As a general rule:

  • If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.
  • Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead.

Often there is no alternative to parenthetical disambiguation, and it does have the advantage that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English. On the other hand, such disambiguations may be longer or less natural than an alternate but unambiguous form, when there is one.

The disambiguation guideline also contains advice on how to title disambiguation pages when they need to be created.

Sometimes titles of separate articles have different forms, but with only minor differences.

Examples:

In such cases, remember that a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so use appropriate disambiguation techniques (such as hatnotes or disambiguation pages) to ensure that readers can find all possible target articles.

Rewrite:

Shortcuts
This policy section should be read in conjunction with the disambiguation guideline.

When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "United States Apollo program (1961–75)" over Apollo program (given that the year range refers to the whole of the program, not a portion of it); or "Queen (London, England rock band)" over Queen (band). Remember that concise titles are preferred.

However, because pages cannot share the same title, it is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have another meaning. Where there is more than one existing Wikipedia article for another meaning of a desired title, as a general rule:

  • If the common title for the topic of an article, as reflected in reliable sources, is the primary topic (or only topic) for that subject, then the article can take that title without modification.
  • However, when a topic's most commonly used name, as reflected in reliable sources, is ambiguous (can refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, that name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated. There are generally two methods employed to avoid using an ambiguous title:

i) Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose a different, alternate name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title (do not, however, use obscure or made up names). If this is not possible:

ii) Parenthetical disambiguation: Add a disambiguating term in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma), directly after the ambiguous name.

Examples
  • The word "English" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternate but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation.
  • On the other hand, "mercury" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternate names, so we use instead parenthetical disambiguation: Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (planet).

Where there is no set name for a topic, so a title of our own conception is necessary, e.g., List of birds of Nicaragua and Campaign history of the Roman military, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.

Sometimes titles of separate articles have different forms, but with only minor differences.

Examples:

In such cases, while the name is already precise without the need for natural or parenthetical disambiguation, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so use appropriate disambiguation techniques, such as adding hatnotes to the affected articles or creating disambiguation pages, to ensure that readers can find all possible target articles.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I still don't see the point of mentioning "planet Mercury" as I don't think it would ever seriously be considered as a title. I think it got thrown out in the discussion here as a matter of grasping at straws. I really don't think it is a very good example for illustrating anything. older ≠ wiser 00:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to just take it out. A few thought it added something useful. While it does emphasize that we only use actual titles where they exist, I just don't see how anyone would think it was a proper title in the first place so I'm going to take it out now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

POVTITLE

The WP:POVTITLE section of this page currently states:

When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL.

My concern is with the first sentence. My reading of "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name" is that it is intended to mean the same as WP:COMMONNAME, but others interpret it more literally, arguing that it means POVTITLE applies only if the name in question is used by "a significant majority" ("like 9 out of 10") of sources, allowing them to disregard this section altogether in any case that doesn't involve a term that is practically the only name used to refer to the topic in question. Surely that cannot be the intent here.

What is a more accurate reflection of how our titles actually use POV terms? How best to say this? Any suggestions?

My interpretation of this section overall is that in order to be neutral when deciding titles, we (ironically) simply do not give neutrality any direct consideration, and only look objectively at usage and commonality (and the other criteria), and follow that. If it's the term indicated by that process, then we use it; if another term is indicated, then we use that, without regard to how "neutral" these terms are... that's how we remain neutral. So, I propose we be more clear about it:

Titles should be decided without regard to the "neutrality" of a given name or term. Simply follow usage and commonality in the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes a name commonly used in sources will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL.

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The section should reflect what actually happens in the field. Is it the case that titles are decided without regard to neutrality, or do people take neutrality into consideration? Whichever one really happens should be the one documented in policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's not fail to be authoritative in our effort to avoid being authoritarian.

According to the reasoning of this section, as I understand it, taking neutrality into account when deciding titles is, ironically, not being neutral. I think explaining this (authoritatively) is the point of this section, not to reflect what really happens, or dictate what should happen. I mean, if people take neutrality into consideration because of mistakenly thinking that they need to do so to comply with our neutrality pillar, isn't WP most improved if we explain why the opposite is true? But perhaps we explain this by being more authoritative and less authoritarian, like this?

Titles are decided neutrally by disregarding the "neutrality" of any given names or terms under consideration. We are being neutral when we simply follow usage and commonality in the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes a name commonly used in sources will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms are often created; see WP:RNEUTRAL.

--Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Your first sentence needs some work ... but I like the rest. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise; and with the tactic. If there's a neutral title with significant usage, we should choose that over a non-neutral title with majority usage. That's at least within the range of the present guideline, and within what we actually do, at least sometimes. And proposing to change the guideline, in the middle of an argument that it pertains to, to gain an advantage in that argument, without mentioning that argument, is probably not a good thing to do. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was hoping to have an unbiased discussion about this guideline. I don't see how you see a preference for a less commonly used neutral title over a most commonly used non-neutral title in the current wording. In fact, it says the opposite: "In such cases [common name will include non-neutral words], the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dicklyon, and I really don't like some of the assumptions implicit in the proposed text ("desire to pass judgment" is just one). Tony (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That "desire to pass judgment" wording is in the current version and is unrelated to what I'm proposing, though of course that could be improved as well. What do you suggestion?

Since you agree with Dicklyon, perhaps you could explain how you see a preference for a less commonly used neutral title over a most commonly used non-neutral title in the current wording, when it seems to say the opposite (as I explained above). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with saying that we should choose "a neutral title with significant usage" in preference to "a non-neutral title with majority usage" is figuring out what "neutral" means. Majority usage is neutral—in the sense of NPOV. An article is neutral when it reflects the balance of high-quality sources, not when it is inoffensive. I think what Dick actually meant is that it would be better to choose an inoffensive title (assuming one exists that has significant usage) over an offensive title that happens to be more common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not what I was thinking, though it could apply to offensiveness as well as to neutrality. B2C wants to restore Pro-life, in preference to the more precise Opposition to the legalization of abortion (not an open RM, just a discusssion on the talk page there). I'm not saying that the latter is a great title, but Pro-life is certainly not a "neutral" description of the topic, which is about the groups that oppose legalization of abortion, under a banner of "pro-life". They are very commonly called "pro-life", perhaps in the US even a majority of the time. But I think that to try to change the guideline to support his position in this argument, without even saying that that's what he's doing, is unacceptable. An alternative more neutral title might put "Pro-life" in quotes, and call them "Pro-life" opposition to abortion, or something like that. As to his twisting my words above, it would be silly to try to explain "how you see a preference for a less commonly used neutral title over a most commonly used non-neutral title in the current wording", since that's not what this section is about; other sections are about neutrality, and this one is about a sort of exception to it, and if he weren't trying to make a stronger exception we wouldn't be having this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I misunderstood. In regard to what is "within the range of the present guideline", you wrote: "If there's a neutral title with significant usage, we should choose that over a non-neutral title with majority usage. " Doesn't that mean "you see a preference for a less commonly used neutral title over a most commonly used non-neutral title in the current wording"? If your words in green (blue) do not match the meaning of my words in green (blue), that's my mistake. Please interpret them to mean whatever you meant in the respective color. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you misunderstood me. I took your query about "in the current wording" to refer to the section whose wording you are changing. The preference for neutral is not in that section. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
So you misunderstood me (you misunderstood "in the current wording" to mean "in the proposed wording" when I meant "in the present guideline"). What did I misunderstand?

Regardless, let's try again. In regard to what is "within the range of the present guideline", you wrote: "If there's a neutral title with significant usage, we should choose that over a non-neutral title with majority usage. " Doesn't that mean "you see a preference for a less commonly used neutral title over a most commonly used non-neutral title in the present guideline? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

changes backed out

I have just backed out Born2Cycle's changes of today and yesterday, since they bear specifically on this argument that he is in. I'm in it a bit, too, having expressed my opinion against his, but I'm pretty sure it's not an OK tactic to rewrite applicable guidelines during such a dispute without even letting it be known that that's what you're doing. If there's a consensus to accept his changes, that will be OK, but probably this particular dispute doesn't need to leave it's tracks in the MOS this way. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so stupid as to rely on new language I just added to a policy in a discussion I'm in. But of course being in a discussion often means taking a close look at policy, and taking a close look is when you're likely to find opportunities for improvements. Had I seen this 6 months ago or 6 months from now, I would have made the same edits. I didn't think these clarifications (not changes0 would be controversial, so I did not bring them up here first, like I did this more significant rewording. What specific substantive objections do you have to these edits? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Observation based?

I've got a question for Born2cycle. Have you observed that Wikipedians truly don't use neutrality as a naming criterion? How can you observe something like that? I feel that I've observed that Wikipedians do use neutrality as a naming criterion, which gives it completely equal status with the other naming criteria that are already written down at WP:CRITERIA, which have never been anything more than observations - not rules. What's the basis for your claim that neutrality is not a criterion that Wikipedians use?

I like your use of "authoritative" versus "authoritarian". What makes your claim that neutrality is not a naming criterion authoritative? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I hoped you would like the "authoritative" versus "authoritarian" approach... I got that from a parenting coach....

The issue of neutrality in deciding titles is confusing because in order to be neutral we need to engage our opinions about the neutrality of the various terms we are considering when we are inventing descriptive titles, but we need to avoid considering our opinions about the neutrality of names and terms when choosing names based on commonality and the other principal criteria. But yes, I've observed Wikipedians use neutrality as a naming criteria even when common names are involved, unfortunately. I've also observed Wikipedians engaged in acts of vandalism, incivility, supporting or opposing articles moves and deletions based on WP:JDLI and countless other unfortunate activities. That doesn't mean we endorse these behaviors in policy, does it?

So, I'm not claiming that neutrality is not a criterion that Wikipedians use. The authoritative claim I'm making is that WP:POVTITLE is correct in essentially saying that Wikipedians who use neutrality as a criterion, usually to avoid some particular name despite it being most common, when deciding titles based on commonality are in conflict with NPOV (though they probably don't realize it). That claim is authoritative because the judgement that a given term should not be used because it's not "neutral" obviously stems from a non-neutral opinion about whether that term should not be used due to neutrality concerns. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, when choosing a title based on usage in sources, neutrality requires us to not think about neutrality, because we're relying on the neutrality judgement of the sources, and if we impose our own opinions about whether this or that is more or less neutral than the other, we're no longer being neutral with respect to the neutrality judgment of the sources.

But when we're inventing a descriptive title, we're not relying on sources, so neutrality requires us to think about neutrality and use our own neutrality judgement so that our titles are neutral. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In the current dispute, B2C is arguing that neutrality concerns can play no part in titling. I can see the merit of trying to avoid judgements based purely on editors' opinions. But if there is RS that raises neutrality concerns, that would be relevant, would it not? (The example here is several RS newspapers declaring a potential common name non-neutral (and to be avoided) in their own stylebooks.). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm arguing that neutrality concerns can play no part in neutral title decisions when the decision is based on the neutrality judgment of sources: you just look at usage to decide which is most common, natural, etc. (otherwise, if you start imposing your own neutrality judgments, you're not being neutral in terms of relying on the judgment of the sources).

If you're constructing or inventing a title because it's an artificial topic to which RS don't refer directly, then, yes, you need to judge what is more or less neutral, and relying on what RS say about neutrality regarding the terms and names being considered can certainly be part of choosing a neutral title in such a process. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree that policy should encourage articles on philosophical positions to have titles which reflect loaded political rhetoric. BigK HeX (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Huh? What policy, or proposed policy, is encouraging "articles on philosophical positions to have titles which reflect loaded political rhetoric"? This seems like a non sequitur to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I think I understand your argument. Would you say that a consensus of the Wikipedia community has shown that the best way to be neutral is by not trying to be neutral, or is that your argument? Where has the community said that, "when choosing a title based on usage in sources, neutrality requires us to not think about neutrality, because we're relying on the neutrality judgement of the sources, and if we impose our own opinions about whether this or that is more or less neutral than the other, we're no longer being neutral". You say it's "obvious", but is it supported by consensus?

More: "the judgement that a given term should not be used because it's not "neutral" obviously stems from a non-neutral opinion about whether that term should not be used due to neutrality concerns." To whom is this obvious? If it really is "obvious", then why aren't at least 3 or 4 other people agreeing that it's obvious? I think that, on the contrary, editors are expected to use their own judgment, plus consensus, to determine what is or is not neutral. This doctrine that neutrality can only be achieved by not trying to be neutral seems new and original to me. I don't think I've seen it before. (I may be wrong about that.)

A good sign that you're reflecting consensus is the presence of others supporting your claims. Should we be advertising this discussion at, for example, WT:NPOV? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion I'm just rephrasing what WP:POVTITLE already says, has said for a considerable time as far as I know, seems like common sense to me, and I had little if anything to do with writing. At essence it simply means that relying on the judgement of sources about neutrality is being neutral. Can "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. " mean something else?

Sometimes that's not possible and we do have to rely on our own judgement about what is neutral (particularly when the topic at issue is "artificial", like "List of X", sources don't refer to it, so we can't look to sources for guidance), but ideal neutrality is simply following the sources, and the closer we get to that, the better we're complying with NPOV. My proposal here in general isn't about changing it to say this, but is about saying what it already says more clearly. It's a clarification edit, not a change edit, so while I wouldn't object to advertising this, it seems like a pretty minor thing to advertise like that.

I have to laugh about the one objection to the proposal above that specifically objects to a phrase that's in the current wording, not in anything I'm proposing to change. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, any time people are objecting to an edit, no matter how funny you find the objection, it indicates a lack of consensus, and it indicates that it might be worth bringing more eyes to the situation. It seems very clear to you that this is just a clarification edit, but if that's not clear to other editors, then it's not clear. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
How do you achieve consensus when those objecting are unwilling to take the time and effort to understand the current wording, much less what is being changed and why? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You get more people. That's true for every single disagreement on Wikipedia. Convincing people that they're wrong is extremely rare. Once you've gone 2 rounds, it's not going to happen, so that's when you go get more people. As long as you advertise the discussion neutrally, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's a really, really good idea. Arguing here is pretty pointless, really. Open an RFC, or post a neutral invitation somewhere relevant. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

History of POVTITLE?

It might be good to also examine the history of the section in question. Who added it, when? What discussion was there about it, that might support an interpretation or intent? Is there evidence of a consensus in favor of it, or did it just get stuck in and seemed innocuous enough that nobody objected? Apparently, strengthening it to support B2C's preferred outcome in a dispute is meeting some pushback, so maybe these are worth looking into. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the history, I really, really want someone who is part of the pushback to explain his or her objection to the current wording (not anything I'm proposing) substantively. In other words, show understanding of what it means, and an explanation of the objection. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
My concern with a "follow the sources" type of statement like this one is that while it sounds reasonable, it often gets invoked as a way to ignore or override a significant minority alternative. If "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" do something, might there not still be a significant minority that do the opposite? If there are two POV terms for something, do we choose one over the other due to its significant majority? Or do we look for an NPOV term instead? Who decides what majority is "significant"? Without us discussing and resolving these things, the section will be pregnant with bad possibilities. So we should see if they have been discussed, and not change it without knowing what we're dealing with. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Now there is a jolly good point. Thank you! Now we have something to mull over. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I was the one who originally added the language that is now POVTITLE (back in May of 2010, here is the diff where I added it). The idea was to bring this policy into line with what was said at WP:NPOV. Since then, we have had a few discussions that have resulted in some subtle, but important tweaks (I remember a big discussion sometime around June of 2010)... but the core idea remains the same... When the subject clearly has an established and accepted name, we should use it... even if that name may seem non-neutral. But if there is a fairly equal choice (in terms of commonality) between two (or more) terms, go with the one that is more neutral.
Two examples: 1) We had to decide what term to use as the title for our article about the American colonists who favored independence in the American Revolution... The sources give us several choices... "Patriots", "American Whigs", "Congress Men", "Rebels"... even "Traitors". However, a significant majority of sources (both contemporary and modern, and both American and British) use the term "Patriot". And thus so do we... see: Patriot (American Revolution), even though this may seem non-neutral to some people, especially in the UK and Canada (who might consider the real patriots to be those who sided with their mother country... ie the UK). 2) We had a similar but less clear choice when it comes to our article on the other side of that historical conflict... what should be the title for those American colonists who supported the UK? The two most commonly used terms in sources are "Loyalists" and "Tories". But (importantly) both terms are relatively equal in their commonality. Since "Tory" has negative connotations, we go with "Loyalists" as the more neutral of the two terms. see: Loyalist (American Revolution).
We intentionally left the term "significant" open to some degree of interpretation here. It isn't just about numbers. A 55-45 split in raw numbers may be significant if the 55 are all high quality academic journals and the 45 are all lower quality websites and media outlets. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Article neutrality in the WP:NPOV is and has been for many years phrased to refer to descriptive titles (as made up by Wikipedians) rather than common names derived from sources. While I agree with much of what Blueboar has written, I disagree with some of the nuances: "even though this may seem non-neutral to somemost people"!!; "Since 'Tory' has negative connotations" Since when? (see how many times the The Daily TorygrphTelegraph uses the term!) I also disagree with two points.
"significant majority of sources (both contemporary and modern, and both American and British)". It is common practice to look at the usage in sources over the last quarter of a century or so. If we do not do that then we end up with names that can be distorted towards copyright expired, simply because many such publications are now accessible on the web, but their usage is archaic. This can also be true of many terms from relatively contemporary modern usage thanks to spin which makes a term used while it was a contemporary issue but was quickly dropped as a term once the dust has settled and the name that enters history is something else (often the winners term) eg "[American] Civil War".
"55 are all high quality academic journals and the 45 are all lower quality websites and media outlets" it depends if the 55 hight quality academic journals are only read by a small number of experts and written for their peer group. If the "all lower quality" incorporates heavy weight magazines and newspapers (eg the Economist and the NYT), if that advise is followed we my end up with an expert's name in violation of "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, ...".
-- PBS (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. I don't find any directly relevant discussion, but some related things in June, where there was some pushback on the concept and no clear consensus on how to reflect NPOV in choosing titles. It would seem to need closer examination. And if you look at the campaigns that Born2cycle is presently involved in, it's clear why he wants to strengthen the provision, to give easy answer based on counting sources. I think a more nuanced approach would make more sense. Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the reasoning of choosing C when we have trouble choosing between A and B, but that aside, in cases where there is no significant debate about the most common name, in most contentious cases a good argument can be made for the alternative being proposed as well as the most common name, and often for a 3rd one as well. In those situation there really is no good way to make an objective assessment, which is what makes them so contentious. Because of that, if the approach remains "nuanced" as you say, the situation does not change even after some kind of decision is reached. It seems to me that unless the article settles on the name most commonly used in sources, it is likely to remain contentious, forever, except for periods of relative stability, until it is moved to the most common name. So why not go with the most common name right away? Does it really matter that much that we have, for example, Opposition to the legalization of abortion instead of Pro-life? How is the encyclopedia improved by that? As Blueboar says, the principle is that we go with the most common name even if it seems non-neutral. Why not accept that? Why fight it? How are we helping our readers when they will encounter the most common name in our references (and probably the article content) anyway? How is the encyclopedia improved by this "nuanced" approach? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Pro-life is an American term. In Britain were abortion is not a politically divisive issue (Ie it is one where the majority of the public are happy with the status quoe). The abortion debate is phrased as pro and anti abortion (as it would be for hundreds of other political issues). I would guess if you asked someone in the street what "pro-life" meant they would guess that pro-life mean support for a life terms in prison -- meaning life with no parole. In 2002 the BBC used the phrase along with pro-choice to frame the euthanasia debate. So Pro-life probably should be avoided along the lines of fixed-wing aircraft rather than POV issues. -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Pro-life is an American topic. Except for some awkward efforts to try to make it seem more generic, the article really is about the American movement. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few things in danger of getting mixed together here.

  • The general principles for common name (choosing more common over more rarefied or "official", eg Bill Clinton over William Jefferson Clinton) are not the same as the particular principles for choosing a common name that is also perceived to be non-neutral. Much stricter conditions are typically applied for the use of non-neutral titles, as evidenced by the reaction to B2C's recent move request at Climatic Research Unit email controversy.
  • POVTITLE provides for situations where NPOV concerns may be over-ridden. B2C is flipping this to say that NPOV concerns cannot be said to exist because general usage in itself more or less defines NPOV. This is not the case. General usage is only one of the criteria. NPOV concerns may still exist; POVTITLE indicates that they may not carry enough weight in the face of overwhelming usage patterns.
  • In terms of the frequency of a potential title, there seems to be confusion between the term which has the highest number of uses in any google search (plurality), the term which enjoys more than 50% usage amongst all reasonable common terms (majority) and a term which has overwhelming use (significant majority). This matters when you're trying to run COMMONNAME in general and POVTITLE in particular together. A phrase like "most common" is far too loose (it could be applied to all three situations here) to be used in debate or policy.
  • To judge by usage while largely ignoring expert or authoritative opinions regarding a term's neutrality or suitability is effectively Original Research. Google searches done by editors are a helpful guide, not an authority; there's a danger of giving too much authority to google here. The frames of any search influence the outcome far too much. In the case of Female genital mutilation we go, inter alia, with the World Health Organisation's usage. In the case of Climategate, the term itself has received RS criticism for non-neutrality. On B2C's interpretation as applied in the pro-life discussion, the opinions of weighty organisations such as NYT, CNN, CBS and Associated Press should basically not count if the wikipedia-editor-run google search goes marginally against them. But are a wikipedian's googling skills as authoritative? As a result relying highly on editor generated estimates of usage risks breaking both NPOV and OR - which makes TWO of the three core content policies being treated with not enough care.
  • In many cases we rely on authority over usage. For spelling of elements, we follow the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, resulting in page titles like Caesium despite "cesium" being more common in google searches.
  • Letting general usage guide us effectively without reference to expert and authoritative opinion on terminology ignores the problem of real world attempts to skew debate. An RS documented example is the attempt to eliminate "global warming" in favour of "climate change" by US Republican party spin doctors, when talking about global warming. (Thank Heavens Death panel never took that much hold, but not for want of trying). The reason why we need a more nuanced policy is that the world is rather more complicated.

Wikipedians in general are passionately attached to NPOV. In the past week or so I've seen reactions to B2C's arguments and I think it's fair to say people see his approach as weakening our commitment to NPOV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not our commitment to NPOV that my approach weakens. To the contrary, my approach strengthens that commitment. What it weakens is our ability to rationalize our non-neutral views about which use is "neutral" as being "neutral". The bottom line is that to comply with NPOV we ought to trust the assessment of reliable sources over our own opinions, and apparently not very many people like that. It's understandable that a person would rather be the judge of what is "neutral", but that's contrary to, not consistent with, NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
However this gets worked out folks, the section was very poorly written (like a great deal of the page, I see). I've amended the section: shortened it, improved and clarified the wording, and especially (please note!) avoided a piped link to a mnemonic that reloads the current page. Sheesh! Let's not do that, OK? Foresee the consequences of your editing. Not everyone has an infinite and fast internet account, or privileged insight into the information structure that you have in mind. NoeticaTea? 09:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The reaction to Born2cycle's proposals tells us that a lot of people don't understand that COMMONNAME overrules, in a sense, absolute NPOV; it says use the name most people use even if some think the name is not neutral. A lot of the objections show how passionate Wikipedians are about their personal, politically correct POV which they, probably unconsciously, equate with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. But NPOV does not overrule COMMONNAME. --Kenatipo speak! 18:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If it comes down to one policy overriding another, we should look into how we came to have conflicts in policy. It's clear that POVTITLE was added with little discussion, and no consensus; maybe it doesn't really belong in policy. Instead of stregthening it, maybe we should be fixing it to be sure we're not adding something that conflicts with NPOV. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Instead of using words like "over-ride" and "overrule", perhaps I should say that COMMONNAME appears to embody a small exception to absolute NPOV, but that the exception is valid because it's Reliable Sources using the name, not Wikipedia. --Kenatipo speak! 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
One reason I like COMMONNAME is because it leads to using titles that are "practical" and "natural" and "efficient". If it were being followed we'd have Pro-life movement, Climategate and Obamacare; instead we have "Opposition to the legalization of abortion", "Climate Research Unit email controversy" and "National Patient Protection and Euthanasia Control Act" (or some such). To me, those choices are no-brainers. --Kenatipo speak! 19:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it as an exception at all. There are controversies in the real world about what terms to use to refer to various topics. NPOV indicates that we remain neutral on these controversies, and not take a stand. COMMONNAME gives us a criteria to use to select a term independent of the controversy. COMMONNAME allows us to remain neutral. COMMONNAME is not an exception to NPOV. To the contrary, COMMONNAME allows us to comply with NPOV. Going against COMMONNAME in these cases is going against NPOV as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Born2 is correct here. COMMONNAME is not an exception to NPOV; it is an application of NPOV ... it's how we comply with NPOV when it comes to article titles. To invent a name when one exists, or to choose a less common name in preference over a more common name (even if done in an attempt to appear more "neutral") is actually a non-neutral act on our part. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'm starting to think the underlying ideas here have greater application than just titles. I mean, the underlying idea of COMMONNAME -- to follow most common usage in reliable sources -- is useful as a neutral arbiter when trying to decide which of several controversial terms to use to refer to topics in article content as well. The alternative is to use our own judgment based on whatever personal biases each of us brings to the table who-knows-what, which by definition is not being neutral.

That said, this is not currently consensus at WP. To the contrary, people use NPOV all the time to rationalize imposing their own opinion on what they believe to be "neutral" in a given situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we abdicate our responsibility for NPOV, and just adopt the non-neutral language that is common in the polarized sources on controversial subjects, giving the win to the majority? Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it's the majority of the reliable sources that are giving the win to one side in a given controversy about which term to use (we're neutral), not us giving the win to the majority of the RS. By following COMMONNAME, we're neutrally reflecting the winner selected by the majority of the RS, which is the best way for us to meet our responsibility for NPOV. The alternative is for us to step in and take a side... that would be abdicating our responsibility to NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like it's time for an RFC on POVTITLE; given all the arguments it's involved in, I can't see how anyone could argue that it has consensus; I suppose we'll find out. Dicklyon (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar, when you say "it's how we comply with NPOV", I'd say it's your opinion of how we should comply (since you wrote it); my point is that it hasn't had much discussion, so can hardly just be accepted as consensus for how we should comply. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the policy should be changed. I wish it had been followed in the case of Pro-life movement, Climategate and Obamacare. However, it shows that NPOV is not absolute, because it allows non-neutral article titles. A non-neutral title doesn't become neutral just because RS's use it. --Kenatipo speak! 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If NPOV were absolute, we would be required to use something like "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" instead of the less neutral but more user-friendly "Pro-life movement". But COMMONNAME shows it's not absolute, and there are good reasons for that. --Kenatipo speak! 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, if you're arguing that in the absence of bias concerns, COMMONNAME is the best way of following NPOV, I would totally agree. No one here is arguing against that. NPOV is defined as being "fair, proportionate and as far as possible without bias", and clearly COMMONNAME is the proportionate part of that. On the other hand, COMMONNAME (measured by low-threshold google hits) is not the be all and end all of NPOV in article titling - but B2C is effectively arguing it is. It is simply not the case that a term that receives one more google hit than any other individual term is automatically considered to be the only NPOV candidate. For that to be the case we would have to completely ignore anything to the contrary regarding:

  • Authoritative naming organisations
  • Official usage by international organisations
  • Major RS statements on usage and neutrality (such as manuals of style)
  • Problems of inflated google hits overestimating accepted usage (verbatim quotes, names of groups, scarequotes), because google doesn't distinguish between a medium's own use and their reporting on other people's uses.
  • RS analysis indicating the biased, focussed promotion of one particular term by partisan groups
  • Issues of geographical applicability and variability, eschewing internationally acceptable titles that would keep all people happy.
  • The quality of the RS using the term: the NYT, UN, and BBC would all count for as much as the Accrington Observer, Neepawa Banner and the Minden Press-Herald - because google doesn't distinguish between them, just as books brought out by OUP would only count for as much as books by Master Books.

And this is clearly not what common practice is, right up to the most experienced and respected editors. We *do* care who uses the term, not just how many people use it (that's why Obamacare is not a title, obviously). This has been clear in every debate I've ever witnessed about naming of articles. It is simply not true that unless we use google hits we have to fall back on our own judgement - something that unfortunately keeps getting repeated here. If we have a lot of RS stating that a term is not neutral, then it's not relying on our own judgement at all. I would be very happy for a sentence stating that editors with neutrality concerns must produce evidence that the term's neutrality is disputed in reliable sourcing, just to make it clear that vague bellyaching or blogosphere chatter isn't admissible. POVTITLE as it stands basically means when usage is clearly very high across all mainstream media and scholarly work, we can basically ignore neutrality concerns; we presume it is the best neutral term from the extensive use, if you want to phrase it like that. What I find interesting is that people don't seem to produce many examples of POVTITLES that we have, and certainly none for recent events. Jack the Ripper doesn't impress me as a particularly controversial choice. (As an aside WP:NPOV#Naming reads a little more generously about the occasional use of descriptive titles to avoid taking sides (a practice that ARBCOM has also recognised as permissible) than the absolutist position one or two seem to take here. I wonder if there has been an unnecessary conflation of neologism and description on this talkpage.)

A final point: Following a basic form of google hits without any right to question also opens up wikipedia to manipulation from political groups. We are a massively important information source, whether we like it or not. if we decide to rely on general google hits, we'll just influence the rhetoric more, not less. Being "on message" with your group's key phrase to get the media to frame stories according to your agenda is part and parcel of politics now. We could just make that worse. VsevolodKrolikov (talk)

I agree with Blueboar's last contribution to this thread. VsevolodKrolikov, it seems to me that you are over emphasising some sections of NPOV and understating the importance of the NPOV#Naming section (should we change that section heading to to "Article titling"?). I think your point about Google hits is a strawman argument, this policy does not encourage the use of Google hits it encourages the use of a survey (and analysis) of reliable sources. As several people has told you this, can you please stop flogging that dead horse?
Reliable sources as added to the policy some years ago (2008?) and was introduced after discussions which brought up the points you are raising about unreliable sources being used to justify article titles in naming debates. Its introduction into this policy page has allowed us to simplify naming convention guidelines that previously were rule based to simulate usage by reliable sources. You brought up climategate as an example. I added a * Comment to the debate at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Requested Move that in my opinion nearly all those who opposed the move (up to the time I posted my comment), did not do what this policy and NPOV#Naming requires -- discuss the requested move in terms of what the reliable sources use. Instead they based the justification on rejection of what they thought was a biased name (without backing up their opinion through the use of reliable sources) and in my opinion opinions base on "I do not like it" should be discounted in favour of opinions based on reliable sources and surveys of reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_32&oldid=1206141217"