User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Born2cycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Confusion
I must admit I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish at WT:AT. It’s almost like you’re arguing a reductio ad absurdum fallacy for your own side of the argument. Or do you really think increased ambiguity or imprecision better serves anyone? I feel like I’m just completely missing your point. And it seems like most everyone else is, too, so would you mind explaining? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I just don't see the value in titles that are unnecessarily disambiguated - so I'm asking all those who believe there is value in disambiguating beyond what is needed for technical reasons (a unique title), what that value is. --В²C ☎ 20:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, then I think it would help to stick to that specific question, rather than a hypothetical scenario where the limitations we do have don’t apply and titles could be entirely indistinguishable. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the date range scenario I don't understand. There is no technical reason to disambiguate those titles. Those articles are at the unadorned date range titles right now and there is no technical reason to disambiguate them. Title could be entirely indistinguishable? What do you mean? Titles can't be entirely distinguishable - due to technical limitations. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, then I think it would help to stick to that specific question, rather than a hypothetical scenario where the limitations we do have don’t apply and titles could be entirely indistinguishable. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no "technical reason", but the precision principle that a title should be precise enough to indicate the topic of the article is a good one to go by. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. This disambiguation is not for technical reasons. It’s for disambiguation reasons. Sometimes those things overlap, but not necessarily. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The genesis for disambiguation on WP was a single technical reason: no two articles can have the same title. If not for that limitation, every article could be titled with its most common name without regard to any other uses of that name. That remains the case for articles with titles that do not have to be disambiguated for that technical reason. You guys are talking as if there are other good reasons for disambiguation other than this technical reason (from, say, other uses of a name that don't have articles on WP) . I don't know what they are. Please explain what they are. And a vague reference to the "precision principle" doesn't cut it. How do readers actually benefit (assuming they even notice) if the title of an article is more precise than being merely its (ambiguous with other uses but which do not have articles on WP) name? --В²C ☎ 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- So that explains it… it’s a difference of philosophy. You see title disambiguation as simply a technical necessity, whereas I (and, I’d wager, the majority of editors) see it also as a lexical necessity. I don’t think any convincing can be done either way. Both sides have tried to explain our opposing views for some time now, and those explanations do not seem to have been accepted. The best we can do now is to agree to disagree and go along with community consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- My question stands. But what is this "lexical" necessity, exactly? What makes it benefit readers at all, much less make it a necessity? When people on Britannica land on any article about a topic named "Mercury", the title on the page they see is Mercury, regardless of whether it's planet, god or plant. We can't do that because our titles are tied to the URL, and the URL must be unique, but the point is the Brittanica articles display undisambiguated titles, apparently with no harm. Am I missing something? --В²C ☎ 00:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
“When people on Britannica land on any article about a topic named "Mercury", the title on the page they see is Mercury, regardless of whether it's planet, god or plant.”
And that strikes me as a usability problem. I explained that position on WT:AT. In fact, I thought I answered most of this on there, didn’t I? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- My question stands. But what is this "lexical" necessity, exactly? What makes it benefit readers at all, much less make it a necessity? When people on Britannica land on any article about a topic named "Mercury", the title on the page they see is Mercury, regardless of whether it's planet, god or plant. We can't do that because our titles are tied to the URL, and the URL must be unique, but the point is the Brittanica articles display undisambiguated titles, apparently with no harm. Am I missing something? --В²C ☎ 00:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- So that explains it… it’s a difference of philosophy. You see title disambiguation as simply a technical necessity, whereas I (and, I’d wager, the majority of editors) see it also as a lexical necessity. I don’t think any convincing can be done either way. Both sides have tried to explain our opposing views for some time now, and those explanations do not seem to have been accepted. The best we can do now is to agree to disagree and go along with community consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The genesis for disambiguation on WP was a single technical reason: no two articles can have the same title. If not for that limitation, every article could be titled with its most common name without regard to any other uses of that name. That remains the case for articles with titles that do not have to be disambiguated for that technical reason. You guys are talking as if there are other good reasons for disambiguation other than this technical reason (from, say, other uses of a name that don't have articles on WP) . I don't know what they are. Please explain what they are. And a vague reference to the "precision principle" doesn't cut it. How do readers actually benefit (assuming they even notice) if the title of an article is more precise than being merely its (ambiguous with other uses but which do not have articles on WP) name? --В²C ☎ 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you asserted your belief that it was a usability problem - but you did not explain how that was so. In general, this is what I'm looking for something like this:
- User needs to ___________________________________________, so the user does ____________________________________. As a result, ____________________________________________ happens, and this is a problem because ______________________________________, all stemming from the title on the article page being overly ambiguous or imprecise.
That would support your claim of a usability problem. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- All right, here’s one. A user clicks a link in an article to learn more about the element of mercury. However, an editor was careless and the link inappropriately leads to the article about the planet of Mercury. Since this hypothetical encyclopedia never qualifies its article titles, the user is needlessly confused as he starts reading the article, and it’s not even immediately clear that there may be other articles by the same name. This particular confusion would easily be avoided by the mere word “planet” or “element” being prominently displayed in the title. (I’m sure there are better subjects to use as examples here, but this should at least give you the idea.) And yes, reading the text of the article would make the mistake clear, but a precise title makes that unnecessary. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Related: User:Xoloz’s !vote at Talk:Bauhaus 1979–1983#Requested moves.
“Upon discovering that it was merely the title of an album I've never heard of, nor ever would want to hear of, I would have felt misled, my time wasted.”
—174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Okay, that helps. I appreciate your intelligence, honesty and effort. I think we're making progress towards at least better understanding each other. But neither of these situations are realistic, are they? And they depend on some editor making an error, making them relatively unlikely to occur (as compared to a problem that can occur without anyone making any errors). So at worst it's not a serious problem. Anyway, even as a minor problem, it doesn't work. On WP, the reality is that the links and the titles are one and the same. So your first scenario is impossible, unless the Mercury in question is treated as a primary topic (and what you describe is a potential problem for every link to the title of a primary topic article that is intended to go to a non-primary use). By the way, the reason we allow the reason we have primary topics is to lessen the likelihood of such "bad link" problems caused by editor errors.
But I suppose we could modify and improve your example as follows. An editor sees the date range 1979-1983 at Palo Pinto County, Texas, in a reference to the years that someone was chairman of a political party, and decides to wikify it for some reason. The editor does not check where this link goes. A reader of that page some days, weeks or years later, clicks on that link, and is taken to an article about the Bauhaus album (presuming it was not moved yet). A bit of a surprise, perhaps, but a hatnote explains all:
- This article is about the Bauhaus compilation album. For the time period 1979-1983 in Britain, see Conservative Government 1979-1983. For the time period 1979-1983 in Australia, see 1979-1983 Eastern Australian drought. For the Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark album, see Peel Sessions 1979–1983. For Stones Throw Records album, see The Third Unheard: Connecticut Hip Hop 1979–1983.
- Xoloz's !vote comment addresses this possibility: "Upon discovering that it was merely the title of an album I've never heard of, nor ever would want to hear of, I would have felt misled, my time wasted". Okay, but what exactly would someone who clicks on a link for a date range expect, and consider what happens today. They land on a dab page for 1979-1983, on which 5 of the 6 links have been added disingenuously in violation of Wikipedia:D#Partial_title_matches. In fact, if that's fixed (see Talk:1979–1983), that leaves only the link to the album, which should therefore be a redirect to the album anyway - so the situation is actually no different regardless of whether the album is at a disambiguated title or not. The user clicks on the date range, and is taken, via redirect, to the article about the Bahaus album. So Xoloz would have been just as misled. Now, if there are legitimate reasons to have a dab page, and none of the uses are the primary topic, that's a different situation, and one we're not talking about.
I'm sure you're sure there are better examples. But here's the thing. I'm not so sure. And I've been thinking about this for years. In fact, I'm quite sure there are zero good examples. However, I'm willing to allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. But if I am, someone should be able to come up with one.
To be clear, we're not talking about a real WP ambiguous situation where we have multiple articles on WP that can be legitimately linked from a dab page at the base name title in question. In such a situation there is no disagreement about the need for disambiguation. What we're talking about it is a situation in which the given name/title "seems" ambiguous, but for which there is only one "legitimate use" on Wikipedia. By "legitimate use", I mean one for which the name in question could reasonably be the title, a redirect to the article, or a link on a legitimate entry (not, for example, a partial title match) on a dab page for that name/title. What specific usability problem does such a situation create for any user? --В²C ☎ 15:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- As several supporters of those moves have said (and I agree), articles named for date ranges would be expected to be about some historical event that occurred in that date range. If the article named “1979–1983” is about an album (or other subject) rather than the date range it appears to be, then the title is misleading, and the reader potentially feels as Xoloz described. But if it’s a redirect named “1979–1983” that leads to the only existing article that it possibly could, and that article is unmistakably not named for a historical period or event, the reader can recognize that immediately, rather than unnecessarily delaying the unpleasant surprise and saving it for the article text. (If it’s a DAB page and we have no articles about that period of time, the reader may still feel like he wasted time scanning through the irrelevant listings, but in this case it’s kind of unavoidable. But where we can avoid it, we should; at least that’s my opinion, and it seems to be the consensus.)
- I hope that’s clear enough. This, I think, is what others have meant by applying the principle of least astonishment to article titles, and it’s a good one. Calling out what the article’s subject actually is rather than what the bare title would lead the average person to expect, that leads to decreased astonishment by immediately allowing readers to alter their expectations. There is no benefit to denying them that, and so we shouldn’t. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. So you think redirecting a plain name title to a disambiguated title is valid and even valuable. I'm dubious, but I respect your opinion on that. I just don't see how a disambiguated title significantly reduces astonishment considering the article lead does even a better job of explaining what the article is about, and arguably does a better job of explaining why the reader got there. Why expect that information to be in the title? Finally, and again, this will only occur if an editor makes a linking mistake. Is this the only type of usability issue you can think of that you believe titles ambiguous only with "illegitimate uses" (for lack of a better term) can cause? --В²C ☎ 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think it can be valid and valuable; by no means should it be a universal rule (i.e., no Paris, France or The Beatles (band)). And I see it as more a matter of WP:precision than disambiguation (which would be why I keep offering that link
). Anyway, there are any number of ways that a user might come across an unfamiliar article, and there shouldn’t be cognitive dissonance between the title and the subject. You have a point about the lead, but why inconvenience the user like that when we don’t need to? - I must ask: Why are you opposed to the concept? You clearly believe that having the added precision in the title is a minor benefit if at all, but it’s a minor benefit to the detriment of… what, exactly? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why am I opposed? I presume you have not read my user page or FAQ. In short, because I believe there is little value in increased precision in cases where it is not necessary for disambiguation, and because there is significant cost in not having a clear guideline on how to decide when and where extra precision is needed. Without a clear line, almost every title is open to debate, and that sucks energy and life out of WP. The only clear line I'm aware of is this: is the extra precision necessary for disambiguation? If yes, then include it; if not, then don't. Simple. Easy. Most importantly, it would eliminate lengthy and pointless RM discussions whose results are subject to the whims of those who happen to be participating and closing, many of which don't permanently resolve anything. Titles just don't matter very much. Descriptive and broadly recognizable titles are fine, but they really aren't more valuable in a utilitarian way compared to obscure titles. It just doesn't matter. It's not a big deal to read the lead sentence. It really isn't. Users do it all the time. They're doing it now. And the number who complain about it are zero.
Trying to make our titles "less misleading" and "more helpful" sounds like a universally good goal at first, but in the end it's just a Pandora's Box, one we can easily close... --В²C ☎ 07:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is WP:PRECISE not clear enough?
“titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.”
(“Unambiguously” here refers to cognition, not to WP:DAB.) An unadorned year range used to identify anything other than a span of time does not fit that criterion. The obscurity of the title has nothing to do with it—it is not recognizable as anything other than a year range. It’s not precise enough. - Let’s say Things that smell like lemon was not a redlink. At that page, one would quite reasonably expect possibly a listing of items that smelled like lemon. If it was an article about anything other than things that smelled like lemon, that would be a precision problem. But Things That Smell Like Lemon, being capitalized, is clearly a proper name, so an article about my best-selling historical novel by that title would be fine. But for an article about my dystopian sci-fi sequel, Citruses, that title would not be precise enough; however much some rabid fans might argue that the pluralization is enough, that title does not identify the subject as anything other than fruit. It would need to be at Citruses (novel), with Citruses either redirecting there or being a DAB page. And with that, I’m going to bed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- First, the “titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" wording has lead to countless pointless RM proposals and energy-draining squabbles, precisely because of the way you're interpreting it.
Second, if WP:PRECISE means that, where "unambiguously" refers to cognition of the title with no context, then the title of almost every article with a topic that is not widely recognized in the general population (90% of books, albums, towns, etc.) violates WP:PRECISE. So, no, I don't think it means that. Does Habenaria "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"? How about Charity Girl? Royal Flash? Iggie's House? Whipping Star? Operation Ares? Kaalam? Please, tell me, without clicking on these titles - what is the topical scope of each?
Third, even if, despite the mountains of titles to the contrary, it means that, it merely says that titles should be that precise - but it does not say why. If it said said that titles only needed to be precise enough to not conflict with other titles on Wikipedia, the reason would be clear: no two titles can be the same. But if that's not the reason for precise titles, what is? WP:PRECISE certainly does not provide any reason. Neither have you, nor has anyone else. Again, everyone acts as if it's self-evident that, to use your example, having a title of an album that, out of context, is "not recognizable as anything other than a year range", is somehow a problem. Well, what is that problem, exactly? I call "no clothes" on that emperor. Because some editor might wikify that particular date range in some obscure article somewhere, and some user might one day click on that link out of curiosity, and end up surprised on the article about an album because it has undisambiguated date range title rather than a disambiguated date range title? That is the reason for adding precision even when it's not necessary for disambiguation? Don't you recognize what that is? It is the epitome of rationalization for an unsupported position! Am I missing something? Seriously. What am I missing? I'm telling you, Emperor Precise is stark naked.
There is an argument to be made that people actually searching with the phrase "Citruses" are most likely looking for the article at Citrus, and that argument would hold even with a novel named Citruses, except maybe if that novel became a best-seller and often-sought topic, in which case it might be treated as primary for "Citruses" and placed at Citruses. This is all really beside the point, because, again, we're not talking about uses that are ambiguous with other uses on WP that actually have articles. The only debate in those cases is about which, if any, of the topics is primary for the ambiguous title. We're talking about off-wiki ambiguity, if you will, supposed ambiguity with meanings that don't have articles on WP. The need for adding precision to those ambiguous titles... titles like Racists, Top Hat, Accepted, Class of '44, Afterwards, ... (the examples are endless) that's what has not been explained, by anyone. Stark naked emperor, and I'm sensing you're starting to realize it. --В²C ☎ 15:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- To your second point: Those two-word titles are clearly proper names, so I would have no expectation of anything else, and if I recognized the names I would surely know what they referred to. Same for the one-word titles, if I understood those words. Those titles are precise enough to not be confused for their primary use in English which they do not have. On the other hand, the primary use of a date range is a date range, so one of those is not precise enough for any unrelated topic. And to your accusation: Again, that’s not the only way to come across an article.
- I have tried to explain, both here and at WT:AT, how imprecise titles can be a problem. So have others. You just don’t accept those explanations. Which is fine; you’re entitled to your opinions. It just tends to make conversations like this kind of non-productive. But one more time: It inconveniences the reader for no good reason. Even if you say it’s a negligible inconvenience, it’s still a perfectly avoidable one that doesn’t need to be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Let's measure the inconvenience to the user on a scale of 1 to 10. Let's also measure the cost of these debates on a scale of 1 to 10.
I rate the inconvenience to be a 2 at most, and the cost to be at least a 4 or 5 (See the size of WP:RM, the complexity of WP:AT, and WP:D, etc). How about you?
You say my examples titles are fine because "if I recognized the names I would surely know what they referred to". I suggest you're biased with the date range example because you're so familiar with date ranges, and utterly unfamiliar with that album name. If you recognized 1979–1983 as the Bauhaus album, you would surely know what it referred to, especially in any context in which you would actually see it on Wikipedia. --В²C ☎ 21:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the body of an article, that’s true. But titles have no context, hence the need for precision. My point about those other names was that even though I don’t know what they refer to, I can still recognize them as names. If the typical user saw “1979–1983” as a title, I seriously doubt he would presume it to be a name of anything rather than referring to a span of time. There’s nothing in that title to indicate that it’s a name. Take 10000000, for example. I would argue that “10000000” is more recognizable and notable for the game than for the number itself, but 10000000 rightly redirects to the article about the number, and the one about the game is clearly about a game.
I’m not sure what your point is about the cost, except that it would be great if everyone agreed one way or the other. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)- Title are never normally seen out of context - so the need to be make them recognizable without context is purely theoretical. There is no requirement to for titles to be recognizable as names out of context. You're just making stuff up. --В²C ☎ 05:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here, User:Born2cycle is straight wrong on all points. He is describing his imaginary world where his minimalist titling ideals would be welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, I’m describing an imaginary world where proper-name titles are unambiguously proper names. The thing is, we each believe our imaginary world to be the better one. I think mine probably hews closer to the reality of consensus opinion, but this kind of debate can be useful. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- My point is simple: "Title are never normally seen out of context". User:SmokeyJoe claims I'm wrong, that I live in an imaginary world But he fails to demonstrate that the point is wrong, which should be trivial if it actually is wrong. That is, if it's wrong, it should be easy to describe where titles on WP are normally seen out of context. I suggest it's Smokey's world in which titles are normally seen out of context which is imaginary. --В²C ☎ 17:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe he was referring to this whole discussion or your non-consensus position in general rather than responding to the particular message. But anyway, the job of a title is to let you identify its subject without context. If this never occurs, then titles are completely superfluous and unnecessary, and we could identify articles by randomly generated strings or any given internal mechanism that is never displayed. After all, the title doesn't matter if you can always work out what the article's about. I'm of the rather opposite opinion that the title ought to accurately and reasonably conveying that information on its own. Not sure there's much else for us to say to each other on this topic; you have your opinion, I have mine, and neither of us is likely to change the other's. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but User:SmokeyJoe said, "Here, User:Born2cycle is straight wrong on all points". What could he be referring to by "here" other than the previous statement I made? — Born2cycle — continues after insertion below
- Here in this discussion, or in your whole philosophical stance on titling. But that’s just my read and we’re both making assumptions here in these recent responses, and that’s rude to Joe, so I’ll stop and hope he replies again. (Edit: It seems he did indeed mean your overall position.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here in this discussion, or in your whole philosophical stance on titling. But that’s just my read and we’re both making assumptions here in these recent responses, and that’s rude to Joe, so I’ll stop and hope he replies again.
- "the job of a title is to let you identify its subject without context". Yes, identify, not describe. The titles of most articles does not describe the subject; clearly that's not the job of the title. It's the job of the lead. But to identify a subject the title merely has to be unique. — Born2cycle — continues after insertion below
- I didn’t say the title identifies the subject. I said the title lets you, the user, identify the subject (by sufficiently describing it to you, even if just by name). Different sense of the word; sorry for the confusion. Now, if the typical user experienced that kind of confusion from a title, mistaking it for something other than intended, that’s a bad title. I’ll not belabor that point any further, since I think I’ve done that enough throughout. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- "... titles are completely superfluous and unnecessary, and we could identify articles by randomly generated strings or any given internal mechanism that is never displayed." That's probably more accurate than you realize. A unique random sequentially generated string can identify a subject. It's the method used to identify data within databases, as I sense you know. While random strings would work surprisingly well as article titles, I'm sure, titles do have advantages. First, they demonstrate how the topic is normally referred in reliable sources (a major reason to use the date range for the title of the article about the album). Second, they make linking easier. They're easier to remember, and names for titles rather than random strings do make category listings more friendly to peruse. --В²C ☎ 00:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- That was my point, that they’d serve the purpose just as well if titles didn’t have to serve the function I described (which, as we’ve established, I believe they do and you believe they don’t). But to play devil’s advocate a bit more: The lead can serve all those purposes save linking. Category pages could just pull the first bolded string from the lead. But this is all moot, barring a rather huge and unlikely change in consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but User:SmokeyJoe said, "Here, User:Born2cycle is straight wrong on all points". What could he be referring to by "here" other than the previous statement I made? — Born2cycle — continues after insertion below
- I believe he was referring to this whole discussion or your non-consensus position in general rather than responding to the particular message. But anyway, the job of a title is to let you identify its subject without context. If this never occurs, then titles are completely superfluous and unnecessary, and we could identify articles by randomly generated strings or any given internal mechanism that is never displayed. After all, the title doesn't matter if you can always work out what the article's about. I'm of the rather opposite opinion that the title ought to accurately and reasonably conveying that information on its own. Not sure there's much else for us to say to each other on this topic; you have your opinion, I have mine, and neither of us is likely to change the other's. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- My point is simple: "Title are never normally seen out of context". User:SmokeyJoe claims I'm wrong, that I live in an imaginary world But he fails to demonstrate that the point is wrong, which should be trivial if it actually is wrong. That is, if it's wrong, it should be easy to describe where titles on WP are normally seen out of context. I suggest it's Smokey's world in which titles are normally seen out of context which is imaginary. --В²C ☎ 17:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, I’m describing an imaginary world where proper-name titles are unambiguously proper names. The thing is, we each believe our imaginary world to be the better one. I think mine probably hews closer to the reality of consensus opinion, but this kind of debate can be useful. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here, User:Born2cycle is straight wrong on all points. He is describing his imaginary world where his minimalist titling ideals would be welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Title are never normally seen out of context - so the need to be make them recognizable without context is purely theoretical. There is no requirement to for titles to be recognizable as names out of context. You're just making stuff up. --В²C ☎ 05:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the body of an article, that’s true. But titles have no context, hence the need for precision. My point about those other names was that even though I don’t know what they refer to, I can still recognize them as names. If the typical user saw “1979–1983” as a title, I seriously doubt he would presume it to be a name of anything rather than referring to a span of time. There’s nothing in that title to indicate that it’s a name. Take 10000000, for example. I would argue that “10000000” is more recognizable and notable for the game than for the number itself, but 10000000 rightly redirects to the article about the number, and the one about the game is clearly about a game.
- Let's measure the inconvenience to the user on a scale of 1 to 10. Let's also measure the cost of these debates on a scale of 1 to 10.
- First, the “titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" wording has lead to countless pointless RM proposals and energy-draining squabbles, precisely because of the way you're interpreting it.
- Is WP:PRECISE not clear enough?
- Why am I opposed? I presume you have not read my user page or FAQ. In short, because I believe there is little value in increased precision in cases where it is not necessary for disambiguation, and because there is significant cost in not having a clear guideline on how to decide when and where extra precision is needed. Without a clear line, almost every title is open to debate, and that sucks energy and life out of WP. The only clear line I'm aware of is this: is the extra precision necessary for disambiguation? If yes, then include it; if not, then don't. Simple. Easy. Most importantly, it would eliminate lengthy and pointless RM discussions whose results are subject to the whims of those who happen to be participating and closing, many of which don't permanently resolve anything. Titles just don't matter very much. Descriptive and broadly recognizable titles are fine, but they really aren't more valuable in a utilitarian way compared to obscure titles. It just doesn't matter. It's not a big deal to read the lead sentence. It really isn't. Users do it all the time. They're doing it now. And the number who complain about it are zero.
- I think it can be valid and valuable; by no means should it be a universal rule (i.e., no Paris, France or The Beatles (band)). And I see it as more a matter of WP:precision than disambiguation (which would be why I keep offering that link
- Okay. So you think redirecting a plain name title to a disambiguated title is valid and even valuable. I'm dubious, but I respect your opinion on that. I just don't see how a disambiguated title significantly reduces astonishment considering the article lead does even a better job of explaining what the article is about, and arguably does a better job of explaining why the reader got there. Why expect that information to be in the title? Finally, and again, this will only occur if an editor makes a linking mistake. Is this the only type of usability issue you can think of that you believe titles ambiguous only with "illegitimate uses" (for lack of a better term) can cause? --В²C ☎ 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Related: User:Xoloz’s !vote at Talk:Bauhaus 1979–1983#Requested moves.
“The only time to use something more precise”
(emphasis added, source [1])—So wait, you do ignore the other titling criteria? Or did you just neglect to mention how they factor in?
By the way, I don’t think I ever apologized for accusing you of WP:POINT over at WT:AT. I hope you can understand the mistake, though, given how ridiculous the question seemed on the face of it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, in that context (the topic has a WP:COMMONNAME), the only time. This is not ignoring the other titling criteria; using the COMMONNAME is the best way to meet all of the criteria. --В²C ☎ 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, apology accepted. Thank you. And understood.
Oh, so the contexts where precision plays a bigger role is primarily for topics without a COMMONNAME (like List of sovereign states) where we have to come up with our own descriptive title, and precision is a key consideration there. And precision is also an important consideration when deciding how to disambiguate an ambiguous COMMONNAME when disambiguation is necessary (other uses with titles; this use is not the primary one).
But when the COMMONNAME is available as the title? That's as precise as it needs to be - there is never a need for more precision in such cases. That's a clear, bright line. If we waver from it, the line evaporates and replaced with nothing but JDLI opinion. Every title becomes debatable and subject to little more than the whims of those who happen to participate in a given RM discussion. A nightmare. See also: WP:RM --В²C ☎ 19:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
One more point. I recognize we could in theory draw another line by disambiguating titles that are ambiguous with uses in common English usage even though they don't have articles on WP. After all, the date range “1979–1983” is exactly that. But we don't do that. We never have. We don't recognize it as a need.
Finally, I think in order to argue a given name is ambiguous and can't be used as a title by itself you have to identify the topic of the other alleged use(s). In this case, all we have is a date range that is not used to refer to any other particular topic on or off WP. Frankly, it's not just a date range, it's also a number range, and even an arithmetic expression. It could possibly be a street address (room 83 on the 19th floor of a condo at 1979 1st Street... 1979-1983) as well (and the potential name of a notable business at that address). But none of these possible "uses" of this term are actually topics. So what exactly is the ambiguity with? --В²C ☎ 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Even with a COMMONNAME, precision plays a role in recognizability. Some proper names (such as the one we’re discussing) are not recognizable as being names, which is pretty important if that’s what you’re using to refer to the thing. That is, it’s not the possibility that it may be mistaken for referring to a significant period in history (or whatever else); it’s that, not only is it clearly not the PRIMARYTOPIC for the term, but you can’t even tell it’s a name. This, I contend, is a scenario where a little added bit of precision makes it unambiguously clear what function the title is serving, and that benefits all users and hurts none. So here’s a bright-line proposal for ya, for all those rules are worth on WP: If the subject’s WP:COMMONNAME is a proper name, and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name is indisputably the subject, use that name without any additional precision or disambiguation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- This interpretation of the recognizability criterion - that a title must be "recognizable as a name" - is a new one. I've never encountered it anywhere else. I suggest that's for good reason. Anything can be a name (and it is). There is no characteristic that distinguishes names from non-names.
Anyway, anyone actually looking for that album, or reading about it somewhere else, would recognize "“1979–1983” to be its title. So what's the problem?
If we tried to make all of our titles recognizable to people who are not familiar with them, we'd be doing nothing but changing titles. --В²C ☎ 15:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you have encountered it, to an extent: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If it's more recognizable as some other thing, it's not the right title for the subject. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but how does that apply here? 1979-1983 is not recognizable as any other topic (a random date range is not a topic) --В²C ☎ 20:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The primary topic of a date range is the span of time encompassed by those dates. So the primary topic of “1979–1983” is the years between 1979 and 1983 inclusive. I feel like I’m repeating myself. You clearly disagree, but I’m not alone in this opinion (see, for instance, comments on the album article’s Talk page, or the DAB page’s AFD entry). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The span of time denoted by those particular dates, 1979-1983, is not a recognizable and notable topic for which anyone would expect an article, except for that one album by those who are familiar with it. It is not ambiguous with any other notable topic. A randomly chosen span of time is not a notable topic. --В²C ☎ 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you overlooking the fact that we have two articles about events in that span of time linked from that DAB page? I would argue that either of those is more primary for those years than an album. Again, cf. the comments by others on those pages. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- The span of time denoted by those particular dates, 1979-1983, is not a recognizable and notable topic for which anyone would expect an article, except for that one album by those who are familiar with it. It is not ambiguous with any other notable topic. A randomly chosen span of time is not a notable topic. --В²C ☎ 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- The primary topic of a date range is the span of time encompassed by those dates. So the primary topic of “1979–1983” is the years between 1979 and 1983 inclusive. I feel like I’m repeating myself. You clearly disagree, but I’m not alone in this opinion (see, for instance, comments on the album article’s Talk page, or the DAB page’s AFD entry). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but how does that apply here? 1979-1983 is not recognizable as any other topic (a random date range is not a topic) --В²C ☎ 20:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you have encountered it, to an extent: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If it's more recognizable as some other thing, it's not the right title for the subject. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- This interpretation of the recognizability criterion - that a title must be "recognizable as a name" - is a new one. I've never encountered it anywhere else. I suggest that's for good reason. Anything can be a name (and it is). There is no characteristic that distinguishes names from non-names.
- Even with a COMMONNAME, precision plays a role in recognizability. Some proper names (such as the one we’re discussing) are not recognizable as being names, which is pretty important if that’s what you’re using to refer to the thing. That is, it’s not the possibility that it may be mistaken for referring to a significant period in history (or whatever else); it’s that, not only is it clearly not the PRIMARYTOPIC for the term, but you can’t even tell it’s a name. This, I contend, is a scenario where a little added bit of precision makes it unambiguously clear what function the title is serving, and that benefits all users and hurts none. So here’s a bright-line proposal for ya, for all those rules are worth on WP: If the subject’s WP:COMMONNAME is a proper name, and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name is indisputably the subject, use that name without any additional precision or disambiguation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I presume you mean:
- Conservative Government 1979-1983, the time period 1979-1983 in Britain
- 1979-1983 Eastern Australian drought, the time period 1979-1983 in Australia
These are currently listed on the dab page, but they should not be, per WP:PTM. They're partial title matches - no sources refer to either of those topics as 1979-1983. In fact, all of those entries are bogus and that's a WP:Contrived dab page. The whole page is up for deletion as well it should be. --В²C ☎ 05:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Considering that I consider each of those more likely to be a desired topic for that term (or: more primary) than a Bauhaus album, I disagree, and I think the final sentence of PTM (along with WP:UCS) is the bit there that best applies here. But to each his own. Or we could say that the term has no primary topic, in which case we should still disambiguate the Bauhaus article. Yes, I know you consider that album to be the primary topic for the term, but that appears to be a view that consensus is quite firmly against. And yes, I know you don’t think we should disambiguate it when there isn’t an article to disambiguate it from, but the fact that it is not the primary topic means we should anyway. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- We're not supposed to make primary topic decisions based on what each of us thinks is "more likely to be a desired topic for that term". We're supposed to look at usage in reliable sources. And reliable sources don't refer to any of those other topics as "1979-1983". There should not have to be any discussion on that point.
Further, that means the Bauhaus album is not the primary topic for "1979-1983", but the only topic for that term. --В²C ☎ 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we are:
“A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.”
And again I’ll refer you to the articles about events spanning those years, and comments on the album talk page and AFD discussion. And perhaps most importantly and fundamentally, the consensus is simply against your position here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)- It's very likely that 1979-1983 will redirect to the Bauhaus album. That would mean the album is the primary topic. We'll see. --В²C ☎ 19:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- “Very likely” when all the other reactions to that suggestion were negative—with some outright contesting the idea that it’s the primary topic? No, I don’t think a redirect against consensus is likely. Wikipedia has rules about acting against consensus, y’know. Do you even have any examples of usage where the band wasn’t already being discussed? Examples that would indicate that ambiguity isn’t a problem? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? What reactions to that suggestion?
The absence of any other topic ever referenced as "1979-1983" not only indicates but establishes that ambiguity isn't a problem. --В²C ☎ 05:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, the time period itself, regardless of whether or not anything else is known by it. And you didn’t answer me as to whether you have any examples of usage. I’ll also reference User:SmokeyJoe here:
“A search for 1979-1983 yields material in multiple articles. What clairvoyance says that anyone who enters 1979-1983 wants the obscure album previously imprecisely located at this title?”
And what reactions? Every time it’s been brought up—in the AFD discussion, in the RM, on WT:AT—it’s been shot down.
I honestly don’t know why you’re still pushing this position. Consensus is pretty solidly against you two here. Or are you seeing this as more of a philosophical debate at this point? I’m just not sure what your goal in this discussion is, nor what mine should be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)- The goal is to advance the accessibility of Wikipedia to all people, including through meaningful titles, as opposed to your goal of minimalist titling with no words not proven necessary allowed, based on theories that editors would be more productive if they would just stop resisting your inconcise endless rhetoric and follow your preferred algorithms for decision making. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, the time period itself, regardless of whether or not anything else is known by it. And you didn’t answer me as to whether you have any examples of usage. I’ll also reference User:SmokeyJoe here:
- Huh? What reactions to that suggestion?
- “Very likely” when all the other reactions to that suggestion were negative—with some outright contesting the idea that it’s the primary topic? No, I don’t think a redirect against consensus is likely. Wikipedia has rules about acting against consensus, y’know. Do you even have any examples of usage where the band wasn’t already being discussed? Examples that would indicate that ambiguity isn’t a problem? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's very likely that 1979-1983 will redirect to the Bauhaus album. That would mean the album is the primary topic. We'll see. --В²C ☎ 19:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we are:
- We're not supposed to make primary topic decisions based on what each of us thinks is "more likely to be a desired topic for that term". We're supposed to look at usage in reliable sources. And reliable sources don't refer to any of those other topics as "1979-1983". There should not have to be any discussion on that point.
SmokeyJoe, I meant I’m not sure whether he’s trying to change my mind, or whether he’s exploring possibilities via debate, or just enjoying the opportunity to discuss it, or what.
B2C, as we seem to be repeating ourselves, this may be my final word on this matter. So I’ll make it as explicit as I can.
If a title is comprised of a number, something indicating a numerical range, and another number, and if each of those numbers is the title of an article about a calendar year, it’s my position that this should never be used as a title for or redirect to any article other than one about real-world historical events that span those years. If there are no events that span those years, that title should not be used. If there is some thing that has such a title, and that thing merits its own article in an encyclopedia, that article should use an alternative title, because it is not about events that span the indicated years.
I don’t know if a community-wide consensus about this matter exists. I don’t think it does. But I think that if it did, then neither of our two positions would match it exactly, but it would favor treating a span of years as a span of years.
As for this particular span of years, there are at least two articles about matching historical events; so, per the above, no article that is about anything other than historical events should have that title or redirect. From my read of current consensus, there are compelling arguments for not redirecting to the article about a collection of songs that one band produced within those years, and a repeatedly refuted argument for redirecting.
In short: You strongly hold an opinion that is counter to consensus, and in my eyes counter to common sense. And that’s okay, as long as you recognize that your opinion is counter to consensus rather than stubbornly refusing to let it go. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have several related opinions about this; which one are you talking about? The first is that when there is only one article on WP that is referred to as "X" in reliable sources, then X should be the title of (or, if the article topic has some other name by which it is more commonly referred which could and should be its title, then X should be a redirect to) that article. In general we have community consensus about this as reflected in how we actually title almost all of our articles.
Second, I see no reason to not apply this general case to the special case where "X" happens to be a date range, but a majority of editors opining on the question have indicated a preference for a more descriptive title, though no one can explain how ambiguity with an imagined hypothetical use (doesn't have an actual article) could be problematic for anyone to any significant degree in any specific context.
Third, given that the title is the more descriptive one, the unadorned one, 1979–1983, should redirect to the article. It's unclear where consensus is on this question, but quite a few in the Afd discussion seem to support it. --В²C ☎ 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, there ya go. Apparently the closer (unknown to me, FWIW) found the arguments for redirection to the album commonly known as 1979-1983 to be compelling (The result was redirect to Bauhaus 1979–1983), and rightfully so, IMHO. --В²C ☎ 00:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Huh. I thought the consensus was more against redirection, with only you and Dohn Joe supporting it. I can see the closer’s point, though, that the search-based arguments were kinda weak. Anyway, about the article title proper… it’s been explained to you. It’s not an “imagined hypothetical use,” but the obvious use of the term. The subject of a relatively obscure compilation of songs by a band—which it’s arguable whether it even merits its own article—conflicts with the obvious use of the term. One would expect an article titled with the term to be about the obvious use of the term. And then there’s the fact that there are notable historical events that coincide with said use. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now you're just playing semantic games. To avoid confusion, I specifically defined what I meant by "imagined hypothetical use" (doesn't have an actual article), and yet you choose to interpret those words in the broader (outside of WP) context. But even there, in the world outside of WP, there is no actual use of the term (as you claim). That is, there are no citation to anyone actually using that term (alone) to refer to anything (other than the Bauhaus album). So really I didn't need to limit the meaning to not having an actual article; it is an "imagined hypothetical use" even outside of WP.
You have yet to identify which opinion of mine is "is counter to consensus" and I "stubbornly refuse to let go", or to retract your claim about that. --В²C ☎ 00:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Potential confusion is not limited in scope to things that are on Wikipedia. This is a key point on which our opinions differ, and one that I don’t expect either of us to change his mind on. Another is whether the primary interpretation of a range of years is a range of years. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't argue that potential confusion is limited in scope to things that are on Wikipedia. I argue that potential confusion while using Wikipedia is limited in scope to things that are on Wikipedia, and even there the problem of confusion is negligible. Consider Apple. Without looking, I presume that article is about the fruit, but it might be the computer company, or a dab page. Regardless, there is no confusion whichever one it is. Same with Mercury. I happen to know that is the dab page, but if it were the planet, the element or the god, would it be a problem? What would that problem be, exactly?
And again, if the topic in question is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, which is the case for this particular date range, IN WHAT CONTEXT would anyone ever be confused by having the album at the date range? So really my argument is this: outside of the scope of things that are on Wikipedia, there is no context in which potential confusion could be an issue that could cause an actual problem for anyone.--В²C ☎ 16:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Re Apple and Mercury, it’s a question of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The primary topic of “apple” is unquestionably the fruit. If, hypothetically, Wikipedia did not have an article about the fruit, I would have the same objections to the company’s article having that title. “Mercury” doesn’t really seem to have a primary topic (the planet? The element? The deity? The car make?), so I would have the same objections to any article having that title.
- Other than that of music, in what context is having an album at a date range in a general encyclopedia not confusing? I’ll refer you again to User:Xoloz’s comments at Talk:Bauhaus 1979–1983#Requested moves, where he makes the point better than I. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't argue that potential confusion is limited in scope to things that are on Wikipedia. I argue that potential confusion while using Wikipedia is limited in scope to things that are on Wikipedia, and even there the problem of confusion is negligible. Consider Apple. Without looking, I presume that article is about the fruit, but it might be the computer company, or a dab page. Regardless, there is no confusion whichever one it is. Same with Mercury. I happen to know that is the dab page, but if it were the planet, the element or the god, would it be a problem? What would that problem be, exactly?
- Potential confusion is not limited in scope to things that are on Wikipedia. This is a key point on which our opinions differ, and one that I don’t expect either of us to change his mind on. Another is whether the primary interpretation of a range of years is a range of years. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now you're just playing semantic games. To avoid confusion, I specifically defined what I meant by "imagined hypothetical use" (doesn't have an actual article), and yet you choose to interpret those words in the broader (outside of WP) context. But even there, in the world outside of WP, there is no actual use of the term (as you claim). That is, there are no citation to anyone actually using that term (alone) to refer to anything (other than the Bauhaus album). So really I didn't need to limit the meaning to not having an actual article; it is an "imagined hypothetical use" even outside of WP.
- Huh. I thought the consensus was more against redirection, with only you and Dohn Joe supporting it. I can see the closer’s point, though, that the search-based arguments were kinda weak. Anyway, about the article title proper… it’s been explained to you. It’s not an “imagined hypothetical use,” but the obvious use of the term. The subject of a relatively obscure compilation of songs by a band—which it’s arguable whether it even merits its own article—conflicts with the obvious use of the term. One would expect an article titled with the term to be about the obvious use of the term. And then there’s the fact that there are notable historical events that coincide with said use. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't make any sense out of Xoloz's comments. If they truly make sense to you, please explain this, for example:
Had I found the article titled "1979-1983", I would have clicked on it, wondering aloud, "What possible historical significance could such a periodization have?" Upon discovering that it was merely the title of an album I've never heard of, nor ever would want to hear of, I would have felt misled, my time wasted
How do you find an article, and then click on it? What is he talking about? Stumbling upon a link to 1979-1983 in some random text without meaningful context, and clicking on that? That doesn't happen. I ask again: IN WHAT CONTEXT would anyone encounter this title such that it would be confusing?
As to when it's not confusing, how about every single time it is referenced anywhere, like this common actual context in which it is referenced?
In fact, I challenge you to show me any context in which Bauhaus 1979–1983 is actually referenced (not some imagined non-specific hypothetical reference) that would be confusing if changed to 1979-1983. --В²C ☎ 17:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- And I challenge you to show any context in which the album—or any album with a similar title—has been referenced by the plain year range where the subject being discussed was not the artist. This challenge has been posed to you and Dohn Joe before. Have any been found yet? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know of any context in which the album has been referenced where the subject was not Bauhaus. THAT'S MY POINT. Since every time it is referenced the context makes it clear that the reference is to an album, where is the confusion? What the heck is Xoloz talking about when he says, "'Had I found the article titled "1979-1983", I would have clicked on it, wondering aloud, "What possible historical significance could such a periodization have?'"? WHERE (exactly) could he "find" the article to have such an experience? I think it's completely imaginary. In the real world as well as the WP world, there is no actual opportunity for confusion. If it's not completely imaginary, please describe how and where such confusion could actually occur. --В²C ☎ 19:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- That’s my point, too: This album is never referenced outside of discussions about Bauhaus. It’s never referred to as simply “1979–1983” without making it explicitly clear to the reader that it is the title of a Bauhaus album, even in contexts of the discussion of other albums by other artists. That name does not stand alone. Ever. The album title without “Bauhaus” in the same breath is imaginary.
- As for how one might stumble upon an article title, the simplest answer that comes to mind is by typing “1979” into the search box. Do keep in mind that clicking a link in article text is not the only way to come across an article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so someone for some reason (what reason?) types in 1979 in the search box and sees 1979-1983 listed in the automatically pre-loaded matches. Not 1979-1982. Not 1979-1984. Just 1979-1983. They wonder what that is, so they click on it, and find that it's the name of compilation album spanning those years. Oh, the horror! What confusion! Seriously? --В²C ☎ 20:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not "horror", but bloody annoying. Like when someone on on the street offers some help, gets your attention, then tries to sell you something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you see a seemingly random date range in a list of article title results. It's annoying to click on it and find out that the reason that date range was in the list is because it's the name of compilation album comprising music produced by some band during those corresponding years? Why is that annoying? You clicked on it because you did not know why it was on the list. You were presumably curious. So you found out. What did you expect to happen? That you would land on an article about... what, exactly? --В²C ☎ 22:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because it was not what the user likely expected. The reasonable expectation is that an article named for a date range would be about historical events (rather than a band’s recording sessions) that took place in that time period. The whole point of an article title is to succinctly let the user know what to expect the article to be about. Misleading the user is a big no-no. As a title, an unadorned date range leads the user to expect an article about historical events in that date range. As a title for an article about an album, such a title is misleading. It subverts expectations. It surprises the user. It violates the principle of least astonishment. It’s disingenuous. It’s a bait-and-switch. You get the idea, I trust—the article is not what the title would purport it to be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you see a seemingly random date range in a list of article title results. It's annoying to click on it and find out that the reason that date range was in the list is because it's the name of compilation album comprising music produced by some band during those corresponding years? Why is that annoying? You clicked on it because you did not know why it was on the list. You were presumably curious. So you found out. What did you expect to happen? That you would land on an article about... what, exactly? --В²C ☎ 22:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not "horror", but bloody annoying. Like when someone on on the street offers some help, gets your attention, then tries to sell you something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so someone for some reason (what reason?) types in 1979 in the search box and sees 1979-1983 listed in the automatically pre-loaded matches. Not 1979-1982. Not 1979-1984. Just 1979-1983. They wonder what that is, so they click on it, and find that it's the name of compilation album spanning those years. Oh, the horror! What confusion! Seriously? --В²C ☎ 20:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know of any context in which the album has been referenced where the subject was not Bauhaus. THAT'S MY POINT. Since every time it is referenced the context makes it clear that the reference is to an album, where is the confusion? What the heck is Xoloz talking about when he says, "'Had I found the article titled "1979-1983", I would have clicked on it, wondering aloud, "What possible historical significance could such a periodization have?'"? WHERE (exactly) could he "find" the article to have such an experience? I think it's completely imaginary. In the real world as well as the WP world, there is no actual opportunity for confusion. If it's not completely imaginary, please describe how and where such confusion could actually occur. --В²C ☎ 19:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The reasonable expectation is that an article named for a date range would be about historical events (rather than a band’s recording sessions) that took place in that time period.
There is not a single article on Wikipedia about historical events in a given date range that is titled with that date range. There are, however, WP articles with date range titles that are not about historical events in that date range, like 1983–1991. I, for one, don't know of any books or articles about historical events in a given date range that are titled with that date range. It's certainly not a common practice. Why on Earth would you expect an article "named for a date range would be about historical events that took place in that time period?" Regardless of why you would have that expectation, there is no basis in reliable sources for such an expectation, so it's moot to Wikipedia title decision making, which is supposed to be based on usage in reliable sources.
The whole point of an article title is to succinctly let the user know what to expect the article to be about.
Now you're just making up title criteria out of thin air. --В²C ☎ 15:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- "The title indicates what the article is about" — Wikipedia:Article titles. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- By using the name of the compilation album in the title, as we do correctly at 1983–1991, we do indicate what the article is about. That does not mean this title alone will "succinctly let [any random user] know what to expect the article to be about", which is an unreasonable burden to place on the title. Letting the user know what to expect the article to be about falls on the shoulders of the article lead. --В²C ☎ 17:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are taking two different ways of phrasing the same idea and trying to make them different. A title that "indicates what the article is about" will tell the reader "what to expect the article to be about". It's precisely the same thing. The title "1983-1991" for a compilation album does not succeed in this. Omnedon (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are not at all the same idea. To merely indicate something is hardly comprehensive. If I indicate the way to Tipperary, I merely point in the general direction. To let you know what to expect on the way to Tipperary would require far more than that. Consensus supports the title 1983-1991, and 1917–1987 for that matter, because these titles do indicate what each article is about, even though, like many of our titles, they do not necessarily "tell the reader what to expect each article to be about". --В²C ☎ 19:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are essentially the same. But even setting that aside, how on earth do you feel that "1983-1991" indicates anything at all, when the article is about an album and not a range of years? It doesn't. Omnedon (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The title 1983-1991 indicates it is an article about an album named 1983-1991 (not about range of years) in the same that A New Way to Pay Old Debts indicates it is an article about a play named A New Way to Pay Old Debts (not about "a new way to pay old debts"), that 87 Sylvia indicates it as an article about an asteroid named 87 Sylvia (not about something notable at the address, 87 Sylvia), that Thief Takers indicates it is an article about a TV series (not about takers of thieves), and that Salat al-Istikharah indicates it is an article about a Muslim prayer (rather than a Hindustani salad of some kind). --В²C ☎ 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They do not. The title “A New Way to Pay Old Debts,” clearly being a proper name, indicates that the article is about some item that goes by that name. Same for the example names that follow. The title “Apple,” which could ambiguously be either a common noun or a proper name due to the fact that all titles have an initial capital, does not clearly indicate what the article is about, but the primary topic is the common noun. The title “1983–1991” suffers the same problem, as it could either be about the range of years from 1983 to 1991 itself, about any number of things that might have happened within and throughout that range of years, a listing of various events that happened in that timespan, or the proper name of some item—which there is no indication that that’s what it in fact is. That title does not indicate that the year span is a proper name, let alone that it’s an album title. That title fails at its basic function. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The title 1983-1991 indicates it is an article about an album named 1983-1991 (not about range of years) in the same that A New Way to Pay Old Debts indicates it is an article about a play named A New Way to Pay Old Debts (not about "a new way to pay old debts"), that 87 Sylvia indicates it as an article about an asteroid named 87 Sylvia (not about something notable at the address, 87 Sylvia), that Thief Takers indicates it is an article about a TV series (not about takers of thieves), and that Salat al-Istikharah indicates it is an article about a Muslim prayer (rather than a Hindustani salad of some kind). --В²C ☎ 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are essentially the same. But even setting that aside, how on earth do you feel that "1983-1991" indicates anything at all, when the article is about an album and not a range of years? It doesn't. Omnedon (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are not at all the same idea. To merely indicate something is hardly comprehensive. If I indicate the way to Tipperary, I merely point in the general direction. To let you know what to expect on the way to Tipperary would require far more than that. Consensus supports the title 1983-1991, and 1917–1987 for that matter, because these titles do indicate what each article is about, even though, like many of our titles, they do not necessarily "tell the reader what to expect each article to be about". --В²C ☎ 19:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are taking two different ways of phrasing the same idea and trying to make them different. A title that "indicates what the article is about" will tell the reader "what to expect the article to be about". It's precisely the same thing. The title "1983-1991" for a compilation album does not succeed in this. Omnedon (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- By using the name of the compilation album in the title, as we do correctly at 1983–1991, we do indicate what the article is about. That does not mean this title alone will "succinctly let [any random user] know what to expect the article to be about", which is an unreasonable burden to place on the title. Letting the user know what to expect the article to be about falls on the shoulders of the article lead. --В²C ☎ 17:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about your predilection for the significance of proper names. But that distinction is moot among the following examples. What do each of these titles tell you to expect each respective article to be about? Acie Law, Bad Brains, Bad Orb, Bad Painting, Bad Wildbad, Bad Wolf, Bluecap, Brighouse, Bury, Chickasaw, Chickerell, Clay Cross, Hardy Cross, Clun, Clunch, Člunek, Cluny, Diss, Dissacus, Dissava, Dissay, GB Cave, Greencore, Law Debenture, Law Dome, Law FC, Law French, Law Lan, Much Wenlock, Muchachitas, Poolaki, Poole, Prescot, Redcar, Ryde, Ryder, Ryder Lynn, Ryder Windham, Shatter Cave, South Cave, Southsea, Tow Law, Wella, Welland, Wood Badge, Wood Green. --В²C ☎ 23:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Being unfamiliar with nearly all of those titles, I have no expectations for the subjects of the articles except that they’re each some item that goes by the respective name. The exceptions are “Bad Wolf,” which I recognize from Doctor Who, and “Shatter Cave” and “South Cave,” which I presume to be the proper names of caves but may very well not be. (Conversely, articles named “Shatter cave” and “South cave” should indisputably be about caves.) I must admit I have no idea what point you’re trying to prove with this list, except that words or names are free of the burden of expectations of users unfamiliar with them. My issue with the year range names is that they are clearly year ranges and not clearly names, just like Apple is clearly the name of a fruit and not clearly a proper name. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The point of this is to counter your earlier claim: "The whole point of an article title is to succinctly let the user know what to expect the article to be about." None of these titles, or at least almost none of them, do that. --В²C ☎ 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- They do if you recognize the title. If you know what “Law FC” is, you know exactly what the article with that title is about.
- I do not recognize “Much Wenlock” beyond the fact that it’s quite clearly a proper name.
- I do recognize “Bad Wolf” as a recurring phrase from Doctor Who, or perhaps an episode title, and the use of capitalization implies the latter.
- I do recognize “Apple” as the name of both a fruit and a technology company, but there is no indication of whether it’s meant as a proper name or a common noun.
- I do recognize “Diss” as an English word, but can’t envision an encyclopedia article that might use that title (if it related to the practice of dissing people, I’d expect the title to be something more like “Dissing”), so I assume it’s some other use that I am unfamiliar with.
- Introducing a hypothetical example now, I recognize “3.141592653589” as π to thirteen digits. If an album, book, movie, or whatever used that string as its title, I would expect our article about it to clearly disambiguate it from the mathematical constant, even though that representation of it may be less common than the name.
- I do recognize “1979–1983” and “1983–1991” as ranges of calendar years, and I could easily envision an encyclopedia article by that title describing or listing significant events that those years encompassed—and there is no indication whatsoever that they are meant as anything else.
- That, again, is my beef with those compilation titles, that they do not even hint at being a name of anything. Including an artist name or “(album)” would make it abundantly clear with a minimal change.
- Or to put it another way: If you see the title “Law FC,” either you know right off that its article is about the… hang on… the football club named Law, or you’ve never heard of that but you know it’s about something named “Law FC” that you’ve never heard of before. If, on the other hand, you see the title “1983–1991,” either you know right off that it refers to a… compilation by This Mortal Coil, or you’ve never heard of that band or that compilation and you think it’s about something else entirely. This is bad. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apropos of your pi example, I wonder how we'd handle a hypothetical album entitled (say) "List of British Wikipedians"? Here again the title, though unique, would likely be misunderstood by most readers, and so would call for some kind of clarification. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- If there was a notable topic with that COMMONNAME, then that would and should be the title of its article, and it would not be available to us to use as a contrived title for our contrived topic. We'd have to use something else, like "List of Wikipedians from Britain". --В²C ☎ 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apropos of your pi example, I wonder how we'd handle a hypothetical album entitled (say) "List of British Wikipedians"? Here again the title, though unique, would likely be misunderstood by most readers, and so would call for some kind of clarification. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- They do if you recognize the title. If you know what “Law FC” is, you know exactly what the article with that title is about.
- The point of this is to counter your earlier claim: "The whole point of an article title is to succinctly let the user know what to expect the article to be about." None of these titles, or at least almost none of them, do that. --В²C ☎ 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's see if I can summarize your view. You believe that if a relatively obscure topic has a name that is also a term that refers to something that is commonly recognized, you believe that name should be disambiguated (either naturally or parenthetically) to be the title of the article about the obscure topic, even if the commonly recognized use does not have an article on WP. If so, that's a new undocumented criteria for titles. --В²C ☎ 18:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- You mean precision? That’s one of the main criteria. I think the only real fundamental difference here is you read the policy narrowly, applying only to subjects that have articles on Wikipedia regardless of how confusing the title may be for speakers of the English language, and I read it more broadly, applying to possible subjects that a user would most likely be interested in. If the fruit did not have an article here, you would have Apple be the title of the article about the technology company, where I would object on the grounds that a user would most likely expect an article about the fruit. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so that is your position and it's based on the broad interpretation of PRECISION. But that brings us back to the other issue... what is the point of PRECISION? How does PRECISION help the reader? How does PRECISION improve the encyclopedia?
PRECISION, narrowly interpreted, is necessary because titles have to be unique. The fruit and the corporation cannot both be at Apple. However, if one of the uses is given a disambiguated title, then there is no violation of PRECISION to leave the other use at the imprecise and ambiguous title of Apple. That's the point of narrowly-interpreted PRECISION. So, what is the point of broadly-interpreted PRECISION? It's not necessary - certainly not necessary the way narrowly interpreted PRECISION is necessary. How is broadly interpreted PRECISION necessary? Or is it not necessary, but merely desirable (in your view)? --В²C ☎ 20:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- You’re stuck on reasons of technical limitation again. Technical reasons are not the reasons we use titles. Titles are for the benefit of the reader, the user, the person seeing the title. Same reason we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—that’s not for technical reasons, or why would it matter which topic was primary? It’s for the user. WP:Readers first. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Technical limitations is the only reason we use unique titles. If not for technical reasons, then we could and would just use the respective WP:COMMONNAME for every article's title. So, for example, the titles of the planet, deity and space project articles could all be Mercury, as they are on Brittanica[2], [3], [4]. If not for technical limitations, there would be no reason for disambiguation (which is a technical word invented exclusively for WP), much less WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Of course titles are for the benefit of the reader - that's why we prefer WP:COMMONNAME over, say, random strings for titles. But I submit the benefit to the reader of a COMMONNAME title that is somehow augmented is zero as compared to a plain COMMONNAME title. In other words, there is no reader benefit in our Mercury (planet) title over Brittanica's Mercury title. Similarly, there is no reader benefit (nor technical benefit) to disambiguating (or augmenting) 1983–1991.
Which brings us back to my question: in what specific context does a reader benefit from an augmented COMMONNAME title? The only example anyone has come up with is the relatively new preloaded search results in the Search box, which are not even available in some browsers. And even there, we have two types of readers who enter 1983 in the search box - the one that knows about the album and that one that doesn't. For those that do - great. They see 1983-1991, click on it, and get to the article about the album that they know. Now we have the reader who doesn't. He sees 1983-1991, doesn't know what it is, and clicks on it. He finds it's an article about an album. Now he knows. BFD. Maybe he expected a historical article about that period, even though we don't have a single article about a historical period named with a date range. So what?
Here's the thing. The scope of topics that need to be considered when deciding ambiguity in the narrow sense is clearly defined - it's the current WP title space. There is nothing to debate. There is nothing to argue about. Either there are other uses, or there are not. It's not a subjective matter, at all. But if we use ambiguity in the broad sense, the scope is open-ended, and subject to all kinds of subjective interpretation, and, therefore, argument and debate. And there is a cost to that. To what end? We end up with 1983-1991 (album) instead of 1983-1991? I say the reader benefit is zero, but at best it's insignificant. Supposedly, the title augmentation in such a case reduces "annoyance", but, how much can anyone really be annoyed by a title that accurately reflects the COMMONNAME of the topic that it is about? And even more so when it does not refer to any other topic that is sufficiently notable and encyclopedic to have an article on Wikipedia? --В²C ☎ 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Three problems with your argument here:
- Britannica does disambiguate its titles, much like we do. The disambiguation is just not shown in the title displayed on the article. Thought we talked about that a while back.
- A user who has no idea that “1983–1991” is an album title would be more likely to assume an article by that name would have something more broadly to do with that timespan than the fact that some band made songs during it. And I still question whether that album merits its own article.
- If something is of little benefit but zero cost, there is no question. Your objection to it is that the benefits are in your opinion negligible, but haven’t said what outweighs those benefits other than the fact that you’re compelled to debate it—so why not do it?
- —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Three problems with your argument here:
- Technical limitations is the only reason we use unique titles. If not for technical reasons, then we could and would just use the respective WP:COMMONNAME for every article's title. So, for example, the titles of the planet, deity and space project articles could all be Mercury, as they are on Brittanica[2], [3], [4]. If not for technical limitations, there would be no reason for disambiguation (which is a technical word invented exclusively for WP), much less WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
- You’re stuck on reasons of technical limitation again. Technical reasons are not the reasons we use titles. Titles are for the benefit of the reader, the user, the person seeing the title. Same reason we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—that’s not for technical reasons, or why would it matter which topic was primary? It’s for the user. WP:Readers first. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so that is your position and it's based on the broad interpretation of PRECISION. But that brings us back to the other issue... what is the point of PRECISION? How does PRECISION help the reader? How does PRECISION improve the encyclopedia?
- "Technical limitations is the only reason we use unique titles". This is not correct. Wikipedia uses unique titles to to identify the topic of the article, so that the reader can know from the title what the topic is. Non unique titles (such as titles with differing non-printing characters) would be ambiguous to the reader. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
When I'm in water, I am always wet
"When I'm in water, I am always wet" -В²C ☎ 14:46, 6 August 2014
Irritating, yes, and especially because you try to promote the concept of concision. The phrase simplifies to "sometimes, I am always ...". Always is negated, which is worse than redundant, it is superfluously wordy, the meanings are not apparent, you have to go back to find context, it is the very opposite of concise.
I guess you are using "always" for effect, as if an adjective to "wet". Similarly, you were using "by definition" for some kind of effect, and not using the proper meaning of the words.
I think you are frequently using words according your own altered definitions, and are not thinking of what meaning the reader will assume. This makes you very easy to misunderstand, because you are not talking our language.
"I still submit the shorter one is necessarily more concise (because a name of a topic is fully "comprehensive" in the context of a title of an article about that topic)." What is fully comprehensive" compared to "comprehensive"? You are torturing the language, and will not listen to others who do not join in your tortured language. The concept of "necessarily more concise" apparently exists in your head, but it is not our language. I think you should stop it until you can point to a reliable source that defines and uses the word "concise" that fits you preferred meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- "necessarily more concise" About 47,800 results (0.45 seconds)
- "fully comprehensive" About 820,000 results (0.23 seconds)
- --В²C ☎ 04:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest you try harder to understand what others mean with their words, rather than insist on interpreting in the way you think they should be used. --В²C ☎ 05:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could you give an example of one of those search results that shares your use of those phrases, rather than merely sharing the sequence of words? The variety of uses in those results just confuses the matter further. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I could, but since the point of those is to refute Smokey's assertions ("fully comprehensive" is "torturing the language"; "necessarily more concise" "is not our language"), not to show that others used the phrase the exact way I did, I don't see the point. --В²C ☎ 01:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I thought the assertion was that you were using each of those phrases in a way that other English speakers did not. To refute that would be to show another English speaker using each phrase in the same ways you did. Also, please reexamine your last comment at Talk:Madonna (entertainer). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- He may have been saying that too (who knows with his tortured language?
), but he definitely claimed the phrases in and of themselves were the problem. What else could these mean?
- What is "fully comprehensive" compared to "comprehensive"? You are torturing the language, and will not listen to others who do not join in your tortured language.
- The concept of "necessarily more concise" apparently exists in your head, but it is not our language.
- These are not claims that I'm using these phrases incorrectly; these are claims that these phrases should not be used at all. --В²C ☎ 04:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- You were not discussing car insurance (and in fact neglected to answer his question), and the results for “necessarily more concise” do not show uses of that as a term of its own. Things that are shorter by nature are “necessarily (by necessity) more concise” than things that have room to ramble. Something is “not necessarily more concise” than another thing. These are not examples of the concept you meant by your use of the phrase. What are? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- He may have been saying that too (who knows with his tortured language?
- I thought the assertion was that you were using each of those phrases in a way that other English speakers did not. To refute that would be to show another English speaker using each phrase in the same ways you did. Also, please reexamine your last comment at Talk:Madonna (entertainer). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I could, but since the point of those is to refute Smokey's assertions ("fully comprehensive" is "torturing the language"; "necessarily more concise" "is not our language"), not to show that others used the phrase the exact way I did, I don't see the point. --В²C ☎ 01:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could you give an example of one of those search results that shares your use of those phrases, rather than merely sharing the sequence of words? The variety of uses in those results just confuses the matter further. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
