User talk:Born2cycle/Concision razor

Userfy without redirect

User:Born2cycle, there is no such tie-breaker. It is entirely the creation of the single author. It has no community support, and it overstates things beyond the point of being inaccurate and misleading. Please userfy it, without redirect, and delete any projectspace shortcuts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every new essay is entirely the creation of the a single author. Give it time. Its support in community consensus is reflected in the text itself. If you have an issue with anything specific the essay says, please explain why you believe it is problematic. --B2C 16:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited the essay, introducing hidden text comments. The most serious problems are: (1) Presenting "Concision razor" as something pre-exsting when in fact it is a term you created and this is its first description; (2) ignoring things like WP:TITLECHANGES when listing other methods of "tie-breaking" (if you list alternatives, it is misleading to omit existing policy alternatives; and (3) presenting opinion (however well grounded or not) as fact. I think you are, in general, prone to present strongly held opinion as fact.

Few editors write contentious opinion straight into Project Space. I think it should not be done.

This essay, like your "Yogurt Rule", is a proposal masquerading as an essay, if instead of honestly presenting author's opinions, it attempts to teach a new behaviour. As a proposal with process implications, it would have to go through the standard proposal advertising and community vetting, and risk being tagged {{failed}}. As with that other essay, I think you have three viable options: (1) Rewrite or allow rewriting to that it presents as arguments for certain opinions; (2) tag as {{proposal}}; or (3) Userfy to your userspace, where you have large leeway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with SmokeyJoe. The razor needs to be taken to this piece, not to titles that balance utility for readers-in-search against concision. Concision is not the only criterion for titles. Let's have no more of this "Department of Planning" kind of title, just because it was named first, as opposed to "Department of Planning (Ireland)". Thank you. Tony (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not supposed to reflect community consensus. In this case I believe this essay does reflect community consensus (notwithstanding a vocal minority that strongly objects), but that's besides the point. If you disagree, write your own essay. --B2C 22:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're definitely supposed to represent at least a consensus of a notable percentage of editors, and they're routinely userspaced or just deleted when they don't. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per User:SmokeyJoe, User:Tony1, User:SMcCandlish. See also similar problem at heavily re-written WP:UNDAB essay now out of step with real thing at WP:DAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: If it's not userspaced shortly to User:Born2cycle/Concision razor, it should be tagged with {{Failed}}. This isn't really an essay in the usual WP:ESSAY sense, it's a proposed change to policy, namely to how the WP:RM process will decide what is and is not the proper title for any number of articles, even tens of thousands of them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why it has to be userfied. It's too long but it's not rank nonsense or anything. I don't think you can tag it as failed if it wasn't proposed as a rule. It's not revolutionary or anything, doesn't claim to be a rule, and the essay acknowledges the the Five Criteria for titles are important, just expresses the opinion that Conciseness is somewhat more important than the other four (if I'm reading it correctly). It's just an opinion and it's not unreasonable. I don't agree with it but it's not lunacy or idiocy, some people might just believe that and they're allowed to and to have an essay to point to so they can state their opinion quickly and easily, and of course other people are allowed to disagree with or discount their opinion. I think it could be stated more clearly and I made a beginning at that in a section I added below "What are we trying to say here". Herostratus (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. (Changed from above). The reason is this: it doesn't say anything, really, beyond "Concision is nice". But we already know that, it's one of the Five Virtues for titles. I made a suggestion below to tighten it up, so that it says "Concision is especially important, and under certain conditions should overrule some other considerations (although not any of the other Five Virtues)", and, hopefully, "And here are the arguments for that". That's really the only good reason to have an essay like this. But nobody picked up on that yet. I don't believe it myself so I'm reluctant to do the work. If nobody else believes it, why have the essay. I don't see anyone linking to it to summarize an argument, e.g. "Move to name X because of arguments seen at WP:CONCISIONRAZOR". Because there aren't any arguments, not well-developed ones. So I don't see the use of having this here if nobody's likely to reference it. I hate to reject an editors contribution to essay space, and it'd be a fine userspace essay and could be moved back if tightened up. Herostratus (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, definitely. Given the author's track record of using concision as an excuse for attempting to turn consistent US community names (e.g. "Placename, Statename") into total chaos, we need to read this text as being at substantial variance from project standards such as WP:CONCISE. On top of that, his reversion of others' edits (e.g. one and two) are definitely appropriate for something in userspace, but not appropriate for a community-editable essay. Moreover, it shouldn't be marked as guidance with a template that we only apply to pages advocating commonly recognised ideas, e.g. Wikipedia:Don't move articles at AfD; if he insists on having this template here, it will look more like a commonly recognised idea if it's in mainspace, and only by putting it in userspace can we demonstrate that it's not at all a commonly advocated position. Should he convert others to his position, it can be moved back in the future. If he wants to have this essay on Wikipedia, nobody should be standing in the way, but if he wants to have this essay on Wikipedia in this fashion, it needs to be in userspace rather than in projectspace. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "razor" does not apply to people

FYI

– Pointer to the discussion elsewhere: The thread mentioned below is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Prefer the version with the names written in full? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and initials, a consensus-based naming conventions page, says this: "If reliable sources write out a subject's full first and middle names nearly as often as they use initials, prefer the version with the names written in full. Example: Johann Sebastian Bach and not J. S. Bach, although the latter has more Google hits." (boldface mine) That convention contradicts the so-called "Concision razor" in the case of people's names. This essay should be modified to say that it does not apply to people's names. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've challenged that statement in that guideline, on the guideline's talk page. The only example given of this preference actually manifested in practice is of Bach, but in that case the longer name is used more commonly in RS, so it's not an applicable example. I challenge the existence of any actual examples of this ("reliable sources write out a subject's full first and middle names nearly as often as they use initials" - the initials are used more often RS but we still use the longer less commonly used name in the title). --B2C 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose such an interpretation. There are, of course, local guidelines for projects like royalty which result in some unwieldy long names (Duchess Charlotte Georgine of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Princess Amalie Zephyrine of Salm-Kyrburg), but despite having two presidents with the surname "Bush", their articles are at George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, not under George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush. In short, we have clearly applied the most concise names possible while achieving the goal of disambiguating the names. bd2412 T 03:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this guideline only applies "If reliable sources write out a subject's full first and middle names nearly as often as they use initials". That is a fairly rare circumstance and certainly does not apply to the Bush presidents. The best example we could find was Carl Philipp Emmanuel Bach, whose name is written out in full here, even though C. P. E. Bach gets somewhat more Google hits. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that making sense only because the initialized version has no spelled out forename information, and formulations like J. R. R. Tolkien are rare and unusual. However, one need only delve into Category:Living people and our many categories for deaths by year to see that upwards of 80% of Wikipedia articles on human beings feature only a first name and a last name (even when a middle name, maiden name, or other name information is available), about 15% feature only a first name and a last name followed by a (foo) disambiguator, and the remaining 5% are split between first name, one or more middle initials, last name, or first name, a middle name or maiden name or nickname, or a cluster of middle names, and a last name, or a royal title and a name bearing demarcations of royalty. In practice, it is exceedingly uncommon to have a name longer than the shortest common and unambiguous usage. bd2412 T 17:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense in many areas

While obviously we do not want names like The Black Album (Rockers Hi-Fi 1997 drum-and-bass album), this "propessay" goes too far, and would not make sense in a lot of topic areas, not just BLPs. Most animal species articles would have to be renamed under such a system if part (usually the latter part) of the name wasn't strictly necessary for disambiguation at that time. E.g. California slender salamander -> California slender. I could think of 1000 examples like this in different topic area, but the point is pretty clear from one. WP article titles need to make immediate sense to the largest number of readers. All other goals are pretty much in the trashcan. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The razor only applies when the other criteria don't favor either of the two names. For example, in the case of California slender salamander -> California slender, unless the shorter one is used as commonly in reliable sources as is the longer name, the razor does not apply. I get 102k ghits for "California slender salamander"[1], and just 2k for "california slender" -"california slender salamander"[2], so clearly the longer one is much more commonly used (by about 50x). WP:CONCISE does not trump WP:COMMONNAME - it's a tie breaker when WP:COMMONNAME (and the other criteria, including consistency with other naming guidelines as in the case of royalty) don't indicate which of two should be favored.

But thanks for the example. I'll include it to make this point even more clear.

If you (or anyone else) have any examples of longish titles about topics which have shorter names which are just as commonly used as the title, and the longish title doesn't meet common name or any of the other criteria better than the shorter name, please let me know. --B2C 22:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example added[3]. Does that help? Thanks again! --B2C 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), are you satisfied with this answer/response, or do you still have concerns/objections? If so, what are they? --B2C 15:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to re-read and think about it all again, in the further light of other criticisms (I just mentioned the first one that popped into my own head, without reviewing the extant ones). Given the high level of backlash against this piece, I don't see the point. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue about the role of WP:CONCISE in title decision making is controversial, and opposition can be vocal, but that doesn't mean they have consensus support. There is a small but active and vocal contingent that generally prefers titles which are longer and more descriptive. They believe such titles are to be preferred because they are more helpful to the reader. Whatever the merits of this position may be (I believe they're insignificant at best), this position is directly in contradiction to what policy (WP:CONCISE) states. But that's why they have an issue with what this essay says. --B2C 20:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any further interest in discussing this stuff on this talk page; these questions will be settled at WT:AT, WT:NCP, WT:MOS, etc., not on an essay that no one's buying into and which the author of which is too resistant to other's editorial input. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicts policy?

Resolved

SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) claims this essay "contradicts policy"[4]. How? Where? Please be specific. --B2C 15:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copied from WT:AT:

With prompting, the essay now better reflects the opinion nature of its essense. However, it is far from reasonable to tag it as a policy supplement. As advice, it contracts policy, WP:TITLECHANGES. Opinions are allowed to contract policy, but advice is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not contradict WP:TITLECHANGES. It's consistent with WP:TITLECHANGES. Here is why.
  TITLECHANGES advises against title changes for no good reason. Bringing a title in better compliance with policy, such as with WP:CRITERIA and WP:CONCISE in particular, is a good reason to change a title. Arguably the best reason. WP:RM is always replete with examples of title change proposals based entirely on this reason, and most succeed. --B2C 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be a meaningful discussion, I think SmokeyJoe has to lay out why it contradicts policy, and B2C has to say why it doesn't. Just saying that it does/doesn't won't resolve anything. :-)
    - SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand his position to be that this essay contradicts WP:TITLECHANGES (a section of WP:AT which is policy) because it advocates title changes when there is no good reason to change the title. He doesn't think that using a topic's shorter name is a good reason to change the title. I don't know if he believes a shorter name is not more WP:CONCISE, or whether he thinks better compliance with policy is not a good reason to change a title, or what the basis is for his position, but he's pretty consistent about rejecting using the shorter name as a "good reason" to change a title.
      I believe SmokeyJoe's position is contrary to community consensus. It's clear to me that changing the title to use the shorter name is a good community-consensus-supported reason to change a title, especially when the other title decision-making criteria are not compromised (the only condition in which the guidance in this essay applies), because it brings the title towards better compliance with policy (specifically WP:CRITERIA, also of WP:AT, and more specifically WP:CONCISE).
      More importantly, this isn't about what SmokeyJoe or I believe or don't believe is policy. The reasoning reflected in this essay is used to change titles every day on Wikipedia. Heck, I just participated in a discussion for an RM proposal based on this reasoning[5].
      SmokeyJoe's belief that this essay's guidance — to prefer the shorter name of two for a given topic when all other criteria don't indicate which of two titles to use — contradicts WP:TITLECHANGES is why he believes it should not have the guidance essay tag.
      Unless I'm missing something, that's about it. --B2C 20:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should add that the policy basis for this essay is virtually identical to that of WP:UNDAB. --B2C 23:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The specific contradiction I had in mind was the use of "tiebreaker", which implied no consensus, for which TITLECHANGES applies. I see now that the tiebreaker notion is no longer part of the essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It implied no consensus only with respect to giving consideration to the natural, recognizable, precision and consistency criteria. In a situation where none of those indicate which of two names should be used for a title, we can say we have a "tie" with respect to those four criteria. In such a case, the 5th criteria, WP:CONCISE is a tie-breaker. This is the case in any situation where none of 4 out of 5 indicate which of two names should be preferred, but the 5th one does, and is thus a tie-breaker. Viewing the 5th criteria as the tie-breaker when there is a tie with respect to the other four criteria does not contradict anything in policy anywhere, nor does advising editors to handle such situations this way.
  Anyway, I'm happy to learn we agree the essay, at least as it currently stands, does not contradict policy. --B2C 23:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fresh look

A fresh look reveals that this essay is quite different to the original. The original asserted that we have a razor (implied: something to be used routine to shave, i.e. to slightly shorten many titles), where conciseness criterion should be considered decisive where there is no strong counter argument. In other words, the concise argument itself need not be strong.

Now, the essay does not assert opinions, but states reasons for opinions (and is thus structured as an essay). It has become reasonable, but maybe to the point of being, sorry, boring. I read it now as saying "If all the other titling criteria are not applicable (or balanced, or whatever), then consider the conciseness criterion". Isn't this a straightforward reading of Section 1 of the policy, Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title? Isn't it equally true by substituting any of the other four listed criteria?

Is it now simply an essay that supports the notion that concision belongs as one of the five criteria? If so, I'm thinking that maybe the section Wikipedia:Article_titles#Conciseness, which is a very brief rationale, neither prescriptive nor descriptive of practice, might be better moved here, this page renamed to Wikipedia:Concision, and then tagged as a policy supplement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed in terms of intended meaning conveyed to the reader. From day 1 all it ever said was that when none of the other criteria indicate a preference between two titles, the more concise one should be the title. Of course this is just a particular application of the more general observation that if any 4 of the 5 are all neutral, and the 5th indicates a preference, we should go with that. --B2C 21:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still then have some way to go in appreciating that there can be a big difference between your intended meaning and how others may read what you actually wrote. Think, for example, on the imagery of "razor". Compare with the effect that other razors, such as Occhams Razor, have on their target. Dismissive, rejective, brutal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that my intended meaning was misunderstood. That's the only explanation for the outrage. Some examples of misunderstanding are presented and discussed above on this talk page. --B2C 05:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even after revision, some of what's in here is seriously faulty, and it's not because your meaning is being misunderstood. Your clearly stated rationales have major flaws. I've gone into why people disagree with this essay in more detail here, at a page people actually pay some attention to. It's not "outrage" or some other emotional hooey, but actual reason. You're just not convincing people of your idea here, and its not simply a wording/spin problem, but a logic one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish, nah, that's just more misunderstanding. In particular: "The fact that you would actually prefer California slender if not for those pesky G-hits is proof that...".

I would not actually prefer California slender, and even if I did, my preference would be irrelevant. We don't decide titles based on what we prefer (at least I don't, do you?), we decide titles based on WP:CRITERIA, and largely based on usage in RS. One (imperfect) way to measure usage in RS is to look (carefully - they can be misleading) at ghits. That's a consideration that is commonly used in title decision making. It even has a name, WP:GOOGLETEST. Not sure why you're being so critical of that here. It's an objective way to give us an indication of what is natural.

As to the wate/water example, it's just using an extreme example to make a point - a counter-point, in fact, to the claim that this essay argues for the shorter title always. Granted that's probably too extreme of an example, but sometimes over-simplification can be effective. The point it attempts to make is that commonname and other criteria have to be met - concision does not justify shortening a title without regard to the other criteria. Don't fault me for defending myself against an absurdity, because I'm accused of advocating that. So of course the defense against an absurd accusation is going to seem absurd (out of context) too. --В²C ☎ 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At some point an entire talk page of your protestations that what you've written is fine and just being misinterpreted, and no one agreeing, can no longer be treated as anything but a clear indication that what you've written is not effective and has to be scrapped. Analogy: If your attempt to flirt with someone is rebuffed as creepy, no attempt to keep at it with slightly different tactics, all the while protesting how un-creepy you really are and how your motives are being misinterpreted, is ever going to come across as less creepy. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate analogy - an emotional context. I'm interested in an intellectual discussion. --В²C ☎ 04:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still of the opinion above that userfying without redirect is best. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Even more so now; it's become an unfocused, ungrammatical mess, and almost every sentence of it fails its own base criterion of conciseness. (And that's coming from me, somone with no reptuation for concision at all!) This is basically an abortive proposal that has a talk page full of opposition to it, and a summary of a talk page full of opposition to it embedded into it's own main text. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe:@SMcCandlish: so how does a Userification happen? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MfD. Make the case that the page does not belong in Project space. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not concise

The wordiness of this essay amuses me. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we trying to say here?

This page is too long. Let me see what we're trying to say here:

You have a choice of two titles. You look for Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision (unambiguity), Consistency (with similar articles). Supposing these pan out to be about even between the two choices, you go with Conciseness.

Right so far? But of course. Similarly if you have two choices that pan out about even regarding Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, and Conciseness, but one has a clear advantage in Consistency, you'd go with that. Of course. Pans out about even regarding Recognizability, Precision, Consistency, and Conciseness, but one has a clear advantage in Naturalness, you'd go with that one. And so on. This seems reasonable and obvious. So maybe what we want to say here is

You have a choice of two titles. You look for Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision (unambiguity), Consistency (with similar articles). Supposing these pan out to be about even between the two choices, you go with Conciseness, and in the opinion of this essay, this trumps various other considerations in a way that the other virtues don't.

Right? So to expand let's add

For instance, suppose you have a requested move, so you have to choose between the existing title and the proposed new title, and the two choices pan out about the same as regards Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, and Conciseness, but one has a clear advantage in Consistency. But you might not make the move anyway due to other considerations such as TITLECHANGES/RETAIN, or standards claimed by a Wikiproject under who's aegis the article falls, or grammatical correctness, of various other guidelines or conventions, or any number of other reasons. So OK, no move, maybe.

But Concision is different, and more important, in the opinion of this essay. If the choices pan out about even as regards Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, and Consistency, but the new title has a clear advantage in Conciseness, that's different, and you should probably make the move, regardless of other considerations such as TITLECHANGES/RETAIN and so on.

This is not a rule or guideline, just the opinion of this essay and of anyone citing it.

Right? Is this what we're trying to say here? I can't see any other reason for the essay to exist. There wouldn't be much to point to having an essay to just say "Concision is nice, generally". We already know that, it's one of the five main title criteria.

So can we cut this down to be a lot shorter and more concise? I'm not suggesting the exact wording I used above, I'm sure it can be said much better, but we ought to be able to get the point across more clearly here. Any objections to this?

BTW there's no call for a "Counterarguments" section except and unless the people who agree with the general thrust of this essay want to do that in order to address and demolish those counterarguments. People who don't agree with the thrust of this essay are welcome to create their own essay making the point "Consistency is not more important than the other four virtues when choosing a title" or so forth. Call it NOCONCISIONRAZOR or whatever.

BTW and FWIW I don't agree with this essay as I understand it, but I don't care much either way, and if an editor is of the opinion that Concision is more important than Consistency or whatever she's entitled to that opinion and to an essay to link to so she doesn't have to keep writing out the same argument in longhand over and over (which is the main purpose of essays I think). And if it's going to exist it ought to be well and clearly and concisely stated I think. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what's missing here is persuasive argument. They essay is pretty much didactic, just says "Concision is especially important" without saying why. It's OK, it doesn't have to give reasons, but without that it's just "here's my personal opinion because that's how I roll" which isn't that useful in argument. It's allowed to state personal opinions in arguments of course, but not likely to win any arguments. So what's needed here is "Concision is especially important because ________", but I don't know what would go in the blank. Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So for instance...

So right now over at Wolverine (character) there is a heated discussion over whether the article should be titled Wolverine (character) or Wolverine (comics). There are a number of arguments, such as the possibility of confusion of "Wolverine (comics)" with "Wolverine (comic book)" (a different article), the fact that the character has broken out into films, against which you have that (comics) is the usual modifier used for all other comic book characters, and I'm sure there are other arguments. So you have Precision versus Consistency and so on, and who knows where are you with Recognizability and Naturalness, and then there's topic-specific standards and so forth, and we're supposed to use the highest level of disambiguation necessary (that is, it would be "Wolverine (Marvel comics)" if there was a DC Wolverine, but there isn't so we would never do that but instead use "Wolverine (comics)"), and the question of whether its worthwhile to change the existing title over this, and probably much else.

So it's quite involved.

So would a person who believes in this essay be inclined to cut through this Gordian knot and vote for "Wolverine (comics)", as being more concise? Is that right? And if so, why? And if not, what is the essay trying to say instead? Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]