User talk:2001:db8/BOLDTITLE

MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations

I've found myself in a dispute with User:Shadowjams and User:My76Strat over the interpretation and application of MOS:BOLDTITLE, and would appreciate further input on this policy. I believe bolding and inclusion of a descriptive title in an article's lead should not be done in many cases per that policy and WP:BEGIN, while the other two editors believe in more widespread use of bold titles as shown below. Further, I agree with the general advice in the WP:SBE essay, including not giving undue weight to unofficial descriptive titles. Also, any article title is of course included as a large top-level header at the start of each article. Several specific examples that we disagree on:

1. From Boston Marathon bombings (also discussed at length on that talk page):

• "During the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, two pressure cooker bombs exploded ..." (current version, which I prefer and has been stable on the page for weeks)
• "The 2013 Boston Marathon bombings were a series of bombings that occured during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013." (version proposed by Shadowjams)

I believe the "Mississippi River" example in MOS:BOLDTITLE clearly shows that this wording is disallowed, as it is nearly identical to the example situation, creating an unnecessary WP:REDUNDANCY. The article title is descriptive and per WP:BEGIN is not required, and in fact should not appear at all since it would prevent the terms "Boston Marathon" and "bombings" from being properly explained in context without that redundancy.

• "The first explosion of the Boston Marathon bombings occurred on April 15, 2013, at 2:49 p.m. EDT (18:49 UTC), 13 seconds later, the second explosion was visible ..." (alternate version proposed by My76Strat after a discussion about removing redundancy)

My objection: "What was the attack? How many bombs were there? (Is the article even about a bombing event, or about the explosions that occurred?) The description of what the attack was (two bombs exploding) is split into two parts and less descriptive. Your suggestion does not tell the reader whether the attack happened during the marathon, or if it was a related attack that affected the marathon, or if there were additional explosions." This version severely distorts the wording simply to bold the title, contrary to what the MOS says.

"Mississippi River" example from MOS:BOLDTITLE, as it's referred to several times here:

If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it: The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods) Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy: The Mississippi River floods in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

2. From 2011 Joplin tornado:

• "A catastrophic EF5 multiple-vortex tornado struck Joplin, Missouri, in the late afternoon of Sunday, May 22, 2011." (my version)
• "The 2011 Joplin tornado was a catastrophic EF5 multiple-vortex tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri in the late afternoon of Sunday, May 22, 2011." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

My change here removed the redundant information from the beginning of the sentence. I believe the "Mississippi River" example is a good guide here as well; this is again a descriptive title, and "2011", "Joplin", and "tornado" are all redundant to the rest of the sentence.

3. From 2013 Moore tornado:

• "On the afternoon of Monday, May 20, 2013, a devastating tornado of at least EF4 intensity impacted Moore, Oklahoma ..." (my preferred version)
• "The 2013 Moore tornado occurred on the afternoon of Monday, May 20, 2013, ranking as at least an EF4 intensity, winds between 166 and 200 mph, when it impacted Moore, Oklahoma ..." (current version supported by Shadowjams and My76Strat)

This is a descriptive title, and removed the wikilink for tornado with the change, making the sentence less informative. If that wikilink is reintroduced as it should be, it would create an additional redundancy. "2013" and "Moore" are also redundant. (Note: I realize this type of change on an active article may be particularly contentious, and will require consensus even if it does not comply to the letter of the MOS if there are any objections.)

4. From List of English monarchs:

• "The monarchy of the Kingdom of England began with Æthelstan and ended with Anne ..." (my version)
• "This list of English monarchs begins with Æthelstan and ends with Anne ..." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

My change was to allow more information to be wikilinked. Per WP:BEGIN: "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as 'This is a list of X' or "This list of Xs...'".

5. From 1985 Nepal bombings:

• "A series of coordinated bomb blasts occurred on June 20, 1985, in Kathmandu and other cities in Nepal." (my version)
• "A series of coordinated bomb blasts occurred on June 20, 1985 in Kathmandu and other cities in Nepal." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

The bolded text is not the title, it just paraphrases parts of it (the "Beatles" example in BOLDTITLE says not to bold related text.) I do not see any rationale for bolding in this case.

6. From May 15–17, 2013 tornado outbreak:

• "From May 15–17, 2013, a small, but intense and deadly, tornado outbreak produced several damaging tornadoes ..." (my version)
• "The May 15–17, 2013 tornado outbreak was a small, but intense and deadly tornado outbreak that produced several damaging tornadoes ..." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams)

I am less clear on what the policy says to do here. I changed it since "tornado outbreak" is a WP:REDUNDANCY, and it is a descriptive title and thus is not required to be in the text. "Tornado outbreak" needs to be wikilinked, so it cannot simply be removed from the original version.

7. From Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn:

• "A little black dress designed by Hubert de Givenchy was worn by Audrey Hepburn ..." (my version)
• "The black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn refers to the little black dress that was designed by Hubert de Givenchy and worn by Audrey Hepburn ..." (original version, reverted to by Shadowjams with the comment "this is the most specific lead i've ever seen... your mosbold objection is absurd")

This is a purely descriptive title, yet the text suggests it is an official term being used to refer to that item. I googled "black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn" before changing this, and it is not a widely used name of any sort, so it does not seem to belong per WP:REDUNDANCY and the information presented in the "Mississippi River" example yet again.

Clarification on which versions of these titles are best supported by MOS:BOLDTITLE, WP:BEGIN, and any other MOS guidelines would be appreciated. Thanks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)