Talk:ATF fictional sting operations

Untitled

Article from User:FT2 article has been copied here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otis_D._Wright_II&diff=602584617&oldid=601239270 - to this page - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Even ignoring the typo, the current title, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (AFT) - fictional sting operations is unwieldy, and a major pain to use as a link target. There must be a shorter name, analogous to the ATF gunwalking scandal. "ATF fictional sting operations" might be OK, but essentely no reliable source actually uses that phrase. Instead of repeatedly moving the article, it'd be preferable to develop consensus for a new title here first. Hqb (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was about to boldly move it to Fictional sting operations of the ATF myself, but then you suggested an even shorter alternative. :) I think both our suggestions are better than the present title and would support a move to either. I suppose the lack of a single common name in the literature means we can call the article pretty much whatever we want as long as it's concise, unambiguous, reflective of the actual content, and in keeping with similarly titled articles here. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• I agree there was an issue with the current article name and support either of these improvements Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I like the idea of a shorter title if workable. The title has to be neutral (which all the above are) but also readily understood by a reader/descriptive (which they aren't really because "AFT" just isn't meaningful to many/most English speakers globally, it doesn't convey anything generally).

My concern is that many/most English speakers (i.e., every English speaker in the UK, India, Australia, and generally outside North America) is pretty unlikely to know what "ATF" is, as this is an acronym for a US DoJ body that isn't high profile outside North America itself. (As an analogy, if we titled some article just HMRC entrapment cases would most readers know this was about the UK tax (IRS) service or know what the article was about?). So while concise, I'm concerned that the proposals don't meet our need to have a clear explanatory title. Concise is good, but can we do anything on this concern to find a good compromise? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a big issue, provided the full name of the organization is mentioned in the lead. We have plenty of other article titles which include country-specific acronyms: IRS tax forms, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, CIA activities in the Americas, etc. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Those all have the same issue - they are all US-centric and assume the reader (who may be English speaking from many countries) knows US public body acronyms. "BPR&D perjury controversies" and "DANIPS misconduct controversy" wouldn't mean much to a US reader. Nor would an article on "AQIS scandal 2013" or "ACLEI fake charge disputes"? Those are all also law enforcement agencies in English speaking countries (India and Australia respectively). I just think that however concise and understandable to a US resident, a title like "AFT fictional sting operations" is just as opaque. Part of a title is to ensure the topic will be understandable to a general English reader, not just one who goes further and opens the article. How can we achieve that? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We can't. In cases like these you need to decide between concision and precision. Since article titles are rarely encountered out of context, the concision can usually be given a bit more weight. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeing a consensus to move here, and so doing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC).