Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

Jenner

Bruce Jenner was unilaterally moved to Caitlyn_Jenner. There was an RM to move it back (now archived), which was closed per SNOW within hours. I seem to be the only one concerned about what appears to me to be a blatant disregard for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AT, but if no one else is concerned I'm not going to push it. --В²C ☎ 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is not the only consideration in determining article titles. Do not treat it as such. RGloucester — ☎ 21:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
What part of and WP:AT did you miss? All of it? --В²C ☎ 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be good to update AT with the changes to WP:MOSIDENTITY for consistency. -- haminoon (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSIDENTITY does not apply to titles. Article style (MOS) in general doesn't follow usage in reliable sources nearly as much as title determination (AT) does. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually... the title change to Caitlyn is perfectly in line with WP:AT (and is especially in line with WP:COMMONNAME). When the subject of an article changes name (the reason for the name change is irrelevant), we pay attention to what sources (written after the name change occurred) do. If the sources accept the name change (and begin to refer to the subject by the new name) we follow the sources and do likewise. If the sources reject the name change (and continue to refer to the subject by the old name) we do likewise. In the case of Jenner, it quickly became obvious that the sources were accepting the new name. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Even if that is the case now, which should be clearly established on the talk age, it was not the case at the time of the change. --В²C ☎ 01:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Meh... Perhaps the Identity advocates jumped the gun by a day or two... but bitching about it is kind of pointless and petty by now. Again, it was fairly obvious which way the sources were going, and became so almost as soon as Jenner made the announcement. I would say no harm was done. Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. WP:COMMONNAME, which is policy, supports the move. A confirming move discussion unambiguously supported the move. MOS:IDENTITY supports the move. And, of course, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, which is policy, supports doing the obvious without a formal move discussion for the sake of discussion. What exactly is the concern here? VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should look at source usage after the name change when there is a name change, but moving it when it was was jumping the gun. This time it worked out okay, but it's not a good practice. Next time they should do a formal RM, or at least get a reading on consensus about source usage before making the move. --В²C ☎ 16:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, there is no need for an elaborate RM just to go through the movements. There was no RM, nor anyone suggesting one, and not a single letter printed on the name change when the Jorge Bergoglio biography was moved to Pope Francis. The case is explained in WP:SPNC, and a variant of it applies to Jenner. A little history: there was a big imbroglio over the Chelsea Manning name change, ArbCom case and all (in which the editor that had jumped the gun on moving the page was slapped on his wrists for a lot of things, but not for moving the page "too soon"). Then there were RM's, lots of them, and one that moved the page to the name preferred by the subject after an assesment of a three-person uninvolved panel. Then some of us decided we would have no more of that when the result is thus predictable. Then, after fleshing it out and boiling it down, WP:SPNC was added to WP:NCP, and Jenner's page move falls within its scope. No further entanglements are called for as far as the page move is concerned in such case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Something else to consider: say an editor does "jump the gun" and changes an article title "too soon"... and it turns out that the name change isn't accepted by sources after all. No real harm... It is not a huge problem if the article is at the "wrong" title for a while. Once it becomes clear that the sources have rejected the new name, it's easy enough to change our title back to the old one (which sources are using). The most we would have to do is hold an RFC (where the sources could be discussed and analyzed). There is no time limit on getting it right. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha, no, I think you misunderstood: it is still possible to jump the gun in a disorderly fashion while it is not "unavoidable" for any name change to become the new name supported by sources. Moving Hillary Rodham Clinton anywhere without a formal RM would still be considered disruptive (WP:SPNC has no clear-cut solution for that one). But clear-cut cases like Jenner don't need to be burdened by excess procedure once the unavoidability of the acceptance of the name change becomes clear (which may take somewhat more time than the "minutes" needed for a papal name). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Easy enough? When emotions get involved WP:Status quo stonewalling keeps it far from being easy to change the title back. --В²C ☎ 00:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If it is an emotional issue, wait until the emotions have had time calm down, and people can dispassionately look at the evidence of the sources. Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If we are conflating essays with policy now, I can just refer you to WP:STICK. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
How is policy being conflated with essays? Anyway, wait until the emotions calm down? It took eight years at Yoghurt/yogurt, and that was over a silly h. --В²C ☎ 05:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Rules like WP:SPNC are intended to have a relaxing effect on emotions: this allows us to tread more efficiently emotion-wise now than in the Manning era. Fermented milk may have needed 8 years, Manning half a year, but Jenner (including the current WP:VPP discussions and other ramifications) might be settled in a few weeks. That's how we learn from trial and error. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr it is interesting that you write "If we are conflating essays with policy now" yet above you have conflated an unrelated guideline with the article titles policy when you wrote "MOS:IDENTITY supports the move". It does not. The MOS section to which MOS:IDENTITY links states "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by .... (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article)". The change of name of the subject of an article is covered by a sentence in the article title policy section "Use commonly recognizable names": "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Death of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe" vs "John Doe"

We had a discussion on the talk page of Death of Sandra Bland about moving the article to just Sandra Bland Talk:Death_of_Sandra_Bland#Requested_move_1_August_2015. Basically a person may not be notable, but there Murder, Killing, Shooting, Death is. I think we should standardize this and just use the victims name for the article. It's what will be searched for by readers, it lessens our pontificating ("this was a shooting, see refs", "this was a murder, see refs"), and it's just simpler. What I said there was

  • These "Death of XYZ", "Killing of XYS", "Shooting of XYZ" are silly names caused by our notability policy.
-"XYZ isn't notable, delete it"
-"I changed it to 'Shooting of XYZ', it's notable, see these references"
-"Darn, foiled again"
An RfC needs to be done on a higher level policy page, and all these articles should be named after the person who died.

So here it is. Not sure if this is the right place for this, I'm not very active anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

With correct use of redirects, searching for "John Doe" will take the reader to the article whether its title is "John Doe", "Death of John Doe", "Killing of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe", or "Political leanings, philosophy, and sexual orientation of John Doe". Therefore "it's what will be searched for by readers" needn't be part of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#How to apply "1E" guidelines to murderers. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • These titles are about explicitly limiting the implied scope of coverage. Wikipedia should not be the original and only publisher of a biography. An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe, and its existence invites contributions that round out a biography. If there are no secondary sources outside the Murder of John Doe, then addition of material beyond that is improper. If the title is kept to Murder of John Doe, the prospective editor does not feel invited to add information on John's family, childhood, and employment history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Add me as an interested party in this discussion. In reply to a previous comment, I can't agree that what readers search for is irrelevant to the discussion; see "Naturalness" at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
Regarding consistency of guideline application across articles, is it it the consensus that the articles Rodney King and Chandra Levy are properly named per existing guidelines, and if so, what is it that makes these titles correct (rather than, say, Beating of Rodney King and Disappearance/Death of Chandra Levy) as opposed to others that include the Death of... prefix? I realize that titles are considered case-by-case and some may be in a gray area, but these two in particular I don't understand.
I also disagree that "An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe" unless you can provide a policy reference for that statement. Finally, please WP:AGF and avoid judgy words like "reasonable" which imply that those allied with your PoV are in that camp, and those that perhaps see things differently from you are not reasonable. Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Mathglot. On Rodney King, there exist independent full biography articles. [1] These, even just one, justify Wikipedia hosting a biography, the compilation of a biography is not original research. There is this simple objective difference between scope-limited articles and unlimited biographies.
If no one else has ever written a biography, Wikipedia should not write a biography. This is a very old core Wikipedia-notability concept.
"An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe" I read as self evident. "Reasonable" in "A reasonable prospective editor" is a very common construction, is synonymous with "typical", or "average", and although not well defined I think is easily understood. "your PoV are in that camp"? I think you are imagining things. This is a new topic and I am voicing an opinion that I do not know is associated with any camp. The core element of this opinion is that article scope, notability concerns, and title, are all connected. I did not expect that this would be an objectionable PoV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Emmett Till? The underlying issue driving this is WP:BLP. Historical figures are not so much a concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should add the subject as part of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. We have seen similar discussions many times, and I don't think consensus would like using just person's name for an article whose subject has very little biographical info and a lot of details related to one event primarily involving a person. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the use of "Death of ..." format titles as it makes clear that the topic of the article is the event and not the person. It makes little difference to readers finding the article (assuming there's a redirect), but affects how the article is categorized (e.g. it makes more sense for the article about the stabbing of Abigail Witchalls to be in Category:2005 crimes in the United Kingdom than in categories such as Category:English Roman Catholics or Category:1978 births). It may also discourage editors turning the article into a eulogy. In some cases if we didn't structure the article as an article about the event then we'd have to choose between it being an article about the victim or an article about the perpetrator. DexDor (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your argument has no basis.
>It makes little difference to readers finding the article (assuming there's a redirect)
I agree!
>...but affects how the article is categorized (e.g. it makes more sense for the article about the stabbing of Abigail Witchalls to be in Category:2005 crimes in the United Kingdom
I disagree! It certainly does not affect how the article is categorized. There is no "auto-categorization" that I am aware of that occurs when you entitle an article Death of Person. If you want to have an article categorized in Category:2005 crimes in the United Kingdom all you have to do is add that category to the bottom of the page. The title of the article is entirely irrelevant to the discussion about categorization. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The Emmett Till article imho is in no sense a "biography", it's a story about the events leading to his death, his murder, the ensuing trial, follow-up to the trial, funeral, news accounts, later events covered by the media, and importance to race relations in the United States. There are several sentences about Till's life, but they are dwarfed by the accounts of his death and trial. Whether one agrees that it is a "biography" or not, I don't imagine anyone claiming that Emmett Till's life was notable enough to merit an article before the events leading to his death. So, why isn't this article called Death of Emmett Till?
Conversely, if future updates to the Death of Sandra Bland article succeed in fleshing out more detail about her youth, her career, the reaction in the media to her death, how it affects the current very active race relations discussion in the United States, would that mean that the article about her would be retitled Sandra Bland at some point, and when exactly would that happen and what would be the criteria for "sufficiently biographical"? There would be such a fine line there, that endless arguments could ensue about whether it was or wasn't a biography, and this could be repeated endlessly for each person whose notability was primarily due to the circumstances of their death. I fail to see in what way anyone is misled by an article title "Sarah Bland" or "Emmett Till" being almost entirely about their death. The simple way to short-circuit all such wasted words in the future, is to entitle articles about a person by the name of the person. Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Mathglot Why do you consider an everyday routine MOVE discussion to be "wasted words"? The fact that "wasted words" is even a thing for you is a concern as it suggests that you might not be fully comfortable with the idea of WP:CONSENSUS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you read "Early childhood" section? Don't tell me it's bloated, is it? --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of bloated, I guess. I don't want to bloat this discussion out of hand for such a minor point, but since you insist, you can toggle this open to see what portion of that section is actually about Emmett Till and what is about his mother, uncle, other people, and general mores of the time:
stuff in green in Early childhood section is about Emmett

Emmett Till was the son of Mamie Carthan (1921–2003) and Louis Till (1922–1945). Emmett's mother was born in the small Delta town of Webb, Mississippi. The Delta region encompasses the large, multi-county area of northwestern Mississippi in the watershed of the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers. When Carthan was two years old, her family moved to Argo, Illinois, as part of the Great Migration of black families to the North to escape lack of opportunity and unequal treatment under the law.[3] Argo received so many Southern migrants it was named "Little Mississippi"; Carthan's mother's home was often used as a way station for people who had just moved from the South as they were trying to find jobs and homes. Mississippi was the poorest state in the U.S. in the 1950s, and the Delta counties were some of the poorest in Mississippi.[4] In Tallahatchie County, where Mamie Carthan was born, the average income per household in 1949 was $690 ($6,755 in 2013 dollars); for black families it was $462 ($4,523 in 2013 dollars).[5] Economic opportunities for blacks were almost nonexistent. Most of them were sharecroppers who lived on land owned by whites. Blacks had essentially not been allowed to vote since the white-dominated legislature passed a new constitution in 1890, were excluded from politics, and had very few legal rights.

Till was born in Chicago and nicknamed "Bobo" as an infant by a family friend. His mother Mamie largely raised him with her mother; she and Louis Till separated in 1942 after she discovered he had been unfaithful. Louis later choked her to unconsciousness, to which she responded by throwing scalding water at him.[6] For violating court orders to stay away from Mamie, Emmett's father Louis was forced by a judge to choose between jail or enlisting in the U.S. Army in 1943;[7] he was executed in Italy in 1945 after being convicted of rape and murder by a court-martial. At the age of six Emmett contracted polio, leaving him with a persistent stutter.[8] Mamie and Emmett moved to Detroit, where she met and married "Pink" Bradley in 1951. Emmett preferred to live in Chicago, so he relocated to live with his grandmother; his mother and stepfather rejoined him later that year. After the marriage dissolved in 1952, Bradley returned to Detroit.[9]

Mamie Till Bradley and Emmett lived alone together in a busy neighborhood in Chicago's South Side, near extended relatives. She began working as a civilian clerk for the U.S. Air Force for a better salary and recalled that Emmett was industrious enough to help with chores at home, although he sometimes got distracted. His mother remembered that he did not know his own limitations at times. Following his and Mamie's separation, Bradley visited and began threatening her. At eleven years old, Emmett, with a butcher knife in hand, told Bradley he would kill him if Bradley did not leave.[10] Usually, however, Emmett was happy. He and his cousins and friends pulled pranks on each other (Emmett once took advantage of an extended car ride when his friend fell asleep and placed the friend's underwear on his head), and spent their free time in pickup baseball games. He was a natty dresser and often the center of attention among his peers.[11]

In 1955, Emmett was stocky and muscular, weighing about 150 pounds (68 kg) and standing 5 feet 4 inches (1.63 m). Despite his being only 14 years old, whites in Mississippi claimed Till looked like an adult.[12] Mamie Till Bradley's uncle, 64-year-old Mose Wright, visited her and Emmett in Chicago during the summer and told Emmett stories about living in the Mississippi Delta. Emmett wanted to see for himself. Bradley was ready for a vacation and planned to take Emmett with her, but after he begged her to visit Wright, she relented. Wright planned to accompany Till with a cousin, Wheeler Parker, and another, Curtis Jones, would join them soon. Wright was a sharecropper and part-time minister who was often called "Preacher".[13] He lived in Money, Mississippi, a small town in the Delta that consisted of three stores, a school, a post office, a cotton gin, and a couple hundred residents, 8 miles (13 km) north of Greenwood. Before his departure for the Delta, Till's mother cautioned him that Chicago and Mississippi were two different worlds, and he should know how to behave in front of whites in the South.[14] He assured her he understood.[15]

Since 1882, when statistics on lynchings began to be collected, more than 500 African Americans had been killed by extrajudicial violence in Mississippi alone.[16] Most of the incidents took place between 1876 and 1930; though far less common by the mid-1950s, these racially motivated murders still occurred. Throughout the South the racial caste system was predicated by whites upon avoiding interracial relationships and maintaining white supremacy. This did not prevent white men from taking sexual advantage of black women, but was meant to "protect" white women from black men. Even the suggestion of sexual contact between black men and white women carried the most severe penalties for black men. A resurgence of the enforcement of such Jim Crow mores was evident following World War II.[17] Racial tensions increased further after the United States Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education to end segregation in public education. Many segregationists viewed the ruling as an avenue to allow interracial marriage. The reaction among whites in the South was to constrain blacks forcefully from any semblance of social equality.[18] A week before Till arrived, a black man named Lamar Smith was shot in front of the county courthouse in Brookhaven for political organizing. Three white suspects were arrested, but they were soon released.[19]

Did you read the Early childhood section? It isn't mostly about him, but that's hardly surprising, the boy died in adolescence. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
> ...and I don't think consensus would like using just person's name for an article ...
Are you claiming knowledge of future consensus or is this just WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
But for me, this isn't so much imho about consensus about which naming scheme is better: Death of PersonName vs. PersonName--I'm willing to go either way on that--it's about establishing a clear policy guideline that can be understood by everyone sufficiently to be followed consistently. As of right now, I don't see that we have that, and so there are various articles entitled one way, and other articles entitled the other way, and you can point to bits of policy to support either argument. It's beginning to remind me of some discussions among religious zealots where everybody cherry-picks the bits of Scripture that they like. All I want out of this, is a simple, clear statement of exactly what the policy is, in a way we can all understand and apply. Here's my proposal in a single sentence to be added to WP:AT: "Articles about a person notable enough to be included in WP for whatever reason, shall be named according to the naming rules for a person, regardless of what proportion of their life or death contributes to their notability." I totally get it that numerous people here disagree vehemently with that. Fine--I have no problem with that: let's hear your proposed text to add to WP:AT that will make your position clear, so we can all follow that policy consistently, if it is adopted. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mathglot - you proposed addition to WP:AT is a direct repudiation of WP:BLP1E, thus it is unacceptable. If WP:AT really needs to include such an explanation it must actually briefly explain WP:BLP1E, not contradict it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This again? How often must we go over this for yet another editor new to the area!
  • Where the article is a biography of a notable person which includes their death, the article requires their name as the title
  • Where the only notable aspect of the person's life is their death, we entitle it as "Death (etc) of Foo" and use redirects
This is a WP:BLP issue and a WP:BLP1E issue. Fiddle Faddle 07:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a WP:BLP or WP:BLP1E issue if the person is dead, right?
The statement "where the only notable aspect of the person's life is their death, we entitle it as 'Death (etc) of Foo'" begs the whole question of my argument, and also ignores WP:BIO1E (which is what you meant to cite, instead of WP:BLP1E, right?) which states:

When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. [emphasis added]

The entire thrust of my argument is that under current policy it may be unclear how to name the article, and that we should fix that lack of clarity by an appropriate addition to the policy so everybody understands and can apply the rule. Under current circumstances, there are different ways to understand and apply the rules. I've already proposed a way to amend it, I'm looking for counterproposals. Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ahem... There is WP:BIO1E, a redirect to a guideline's (not policy's) section. It includes implicitly deceased persons. George Ho (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mathglot - if you take another look at the paragraph of BIO1E you quoted above - the three sentences immediately following the phrase you rendered in italics is in fact the clarification, and specifically the second of the three sentences: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." It is perfectly clear to me that that means "Death/murder/killing of..." is correct when the only notable thing about the person is the manner or circumstance of their demise. That being said, I'm not opposed to adding specific language about death if that helps editors who may have difficulty parsing the existing paragraph. What I do oppose is the language you suggested earlier that directly repudiates the long standing convention (and consensus) of BIO1E. (BTW, All BLP policies also cover recently deceased people.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67 I get your point, and am not necessarily disagreeing with you. If you've read through, you've understood that I'm looking for a clear statement of policy either way. So, following your argument about "covering the event, not the person", can we agree to rename the articles to Death of Emmett Till and Murder of Emmett Till and Disappearance of Chandra Levy (or Death of, if you prefer) and if not, why not? These two article names in their present form are illustrious of the problem I am having with the policies as currently documented. (And yes, I know about BLP & recently deceased, but "recently" has a way of receding into the past, and it bothers me somewhat that the policy covering an article changes to another policy, which might dictate another article title, as time goes by. I totally get that time, especially lots of time, may affect WP:N and possibly cause many articles which today are barely past the threshold of notability to fall below it in the future and drop off the encyclopedia entirely--although I bet that won't happen as I have a hard time envisioning discussions in 2035 about whether Chandra Levy should be deleted as no longer notable. But even in that case, it's the same policy--WP:N in both cases, whereas "BLP covers recently dead" is a different animal, and imho is inherently unclear because of the uncertainty of what policy applies as time marches on.) Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
See WP:NTEMP and WP:BDP. If you think those two articles (which I have not read and have no interest in reading) should be moved you are more than welcome to initiate move requests for them. Please do not use a handpicked sample of only two (in your opinion) possibly problematic articles to argue for a major change in fundamental policy. There are thousands of articles on en.WP that are complete crap - we do not cite them as arguments for throwing out all the rules. Similarly if a few articles might be borderline cases for moving we debate the articles themselves, not the policies that guide the move decision. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think source coverage is a workable standard for deciding whether to have a "bio" article or an "event" article. If reliable sources cover the subject's entire life (in reasonable detail), then we can (and should) have a bio article. If not, then we should limit our coverage as well (and only have an event article). And (of course) when there is enough source coverage for both a bio article and an event article, there is no reason why we can't have both (example: we have a bio article on Julius Caesar and an event article on the Assassination of Julius Caesar). Will there be "borderline" cases? Yup... but that will be true no matter what "rules" we write. Borderline cases are (and should be) decided on a case by case basis through RFC and AfD discussions. And, yes... That's going to mean that Subject A will get a bio article, while similar Subject B does not. Consensus isn't always consistent (or "fair") but it is the ultimate determiner on WP. See: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This, exactly: These titles are about explicitly limiting the implied scope of coverage. Wikipedia should not be the original and only publisher of a biography. An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe, and its existence invites contributions that round out a biography. These pages are titled this way for a very good reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Sometime both a person's life and manner of death are notable, which is why we have articles titled Assassination of John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. Sometimes, a person's life is notable but their death is not, which is why we have an article titled Albert Einstein but no Death of Albert Einstein or equivalent. And sometimes a person's death is notable, but the rest of their life wasn't, which is why we have articles just on their death. We should not do anything like the OP is proposing. --Jayron32 01:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There's an RfC on disamibiguation for clarification

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC on disamibiguation for clarification on whether WP:DAB should cover use of disambiguation (often WP:NATURAL) for clarifying inherently ambiguous names as well as when disambiguation is used for preventing article title collisions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender and national sports teams

I'd like to raise a question about current naming of national sports teams. Teams are usually named according to the following formula: County national sport team eg Canada national baseball team, Canada national rugby union team, Canada national bandy team, Canada national cricket team, and so on. It's also possible to insert "men's" or "women's" into the titles as appropriate eg Canada national men's basketball team, Canada national women's soccer team. However the default name predominantly either contains the men's team, or directs to the men's team. To take a selected sample, based upon templates at Category:National teams navigational boxes:

Team type Ungendered name "Men's national team" "Women's national team" Some other name
Canada
Men's teams 8 14 3
Women's teams 1 19 4
Mixed gender 2 1
England
Men's teams 8 5
Women's teams 1 10
Mixed gender 3
Brazil
Men's teams 14 3 1
Women's teams 12 1
Mixed gender
Japan
Men's teams 15 6 1
Women's teams 13 1
Mixed gender 1
Kenya
Men's teams 6
Women's teams 4
Mixed gender 1
Totals
Men's teams 51 28 5
Women's teams 2 58 6
Mixed gender 7 1

There's a clear tendency here - in most sports, the standard practice is to use the ungendered name to refer to the male team, and the gender specific name to refer to the female team eg England national football team/England national women's football team. Voleyball and Water Polo seem to consistently buck this trend as always specifying men's/women's. Other sports show some variation.

I understand that in many of these instances, the reasoning behind the male team being at the ungendered name is that that is the most recognized WP:COMMONAME. Indeed, the policy does clearly state that non-neutral common names are fine as article titles. To some extent, what I'm not looking for here is a discussion of whether a mass name change would fit current policies. Rather, Wikipedia has a problem with its meta:Gender gap. It is meant to be accessible and editable by all, and it is fairly well established that these small differences replicate and reemphasize Wikipedia's gender problems. I'm therefore tentatively suggesting that we should encourage a move of all national sports teams to "men's national sport team" or "women's national sports team" unless the other gender does not have an article title (or the team takes another name eg Davis Cup and Fed Cup teams). However, I might just be a pinko lefty feminist whose views are out of touch with the majority of Wikipedians - the encyclopedia works by consensus and this isn't a trouble for others: well at least I've pointed it out. I think that this merits consideration and would urge you to consider that this is a simple change that could contribute in a small way to overcoming one of Wikipedia's major biases. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Heck, I'm far on the opposite end of the pinko commie spectrum, but I think this train of thought has merit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Rather seems something for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams). Please see if you can find consensus for this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams). If so, and guidance to that effect is introduced in the guideline, it's always possible to report back here to see whether anything would be said about it in the general naming conventions policy (normally not, however, there's no habit of summarizing dozens of topic-specific naming conventions in the main policy page – introducing something directly in the policy, without harmonization with the topic-specific naming convention seems even less desirable). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs... I agree that the real world has a gender bias in how it names its sports teams... but Wikipedia is not the place to correct that bias. We follow what the real world does (as reflected in source usage) in our titles... we don't lead the way in the hopes that the real world will follow. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree quite strongly with Fyunck in regard to this train of thought having merit. There is pretty much equal recognisability between titles such as Foobar team and Men's foobar team. In such an instance in which common name is not so much of an issue and, within situations in which (in Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation) the fourth category of "Descriptive name" can apply, I think that the most relevant aspects of p and g that should be applied are WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. GregKaye 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • In as much as I would generally support a general movement to gendering both male and female national teams, I would note that NPOV in this instance would lean toward a COMMONNAME argument rather than SYSTEMICBIAS. Resolute 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Use commonly recognizable names. Where it is predominantly a female sport then the default tends to be to the female teams without gender eg List of national netball teams and List of netball players (Super Nintendo Chalmers see Canada national netball team and England national netball team) Where there is a genuine split in the commonly recognisable name then there is a dab page eg England national field hockey team. Where there are not enough players to make up a team (England national ice hockey team) who cares! -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also the issue that some tournaments have no gender restriction with regard to events commonly played by men but have a gender restriction for the equivalent event played by women so, to an extent, it would be inaccurate in these cases to describe a Men's foobar team.
User:Resolute You said "I would note that NPOV in this instance would lean toward a COMMONNAME argument rather than SYSTEMICBIAS." Can you please indicate the policy content that you consider to support this?
The content at WP:POVNAMING presents the policy that: "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. .... The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. ... Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue ..."
In a case in which it may present a genuinely descriptive and commonly recognizable title I do not see any significant preference here that against equal presentation of men's and women's topics. However, WP:NATURAL specifically presents: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Both men and women may have a foobar team and, in cases where prevalence of use is not clear, SYSTEMICBIAS should carry. GregKaye 10:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. As the discussion is underway I'll link to here from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams) to get more participants. There seems at the moment a slight warmth for the general principle of moving to Foobar men's team/Foobar women's team where both exist, but leaving at the simpler title Foobar team where both don't exist. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Why can't the four shortcuts for the section "Use commonly recognizable names" redirect directly to the section? Every time I use these shortcuts they redirect to the top of the page. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The two sides of POVNAME

At present, at my reading, the content at WP:POVNAME/WP:NPOVNAME focuses on the differentiation between justified and unjustified, arguably, negatively presented titles with examples being presented as Boston Massacre and the Teapot Dome scandal.

This policy exists on the view that, "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy" and I think that it is fair to consider that POVs may exist in two directions.

Arguably, one of the most controversial titles in Wikipedia has been Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which, as far as WP:OFFICIALNAME is concerned, was changed to "Islamic State".

However I think that it is notable that the primary focus of this group has been the promotion of a very specific ideology associated with Islam that sources have described as a variant of Salafi Jihadism. Also that their practice is to fight against groups incorporating Shias, Sufis and what I described as non-line toeing Sunnis. In this context I think that the context of the group's name change is quite key. According to group spokesperson Abu Mohammad al-Adnani [2] the consecutively made claims were: "Thus, he [Baghdadi] is the imam and khalīfah for the Muslims everywhere. Accordingly, the “Iraq and Shām” in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration. We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him (may Allah preserve him). The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas."

I think that this pretty much summaries the issues of controversy and also think that it is reasonable to associate the usage of the name with the, I would argue, POV claim of being the state for all Islam and that the claim regarding being a state comes in the context of a claim that "The legality of all ... (internationally recognised, existing) states, ... becomes null."

Comments in opposition to article name change by other editors in recent RMs have included:

  • "An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
  • "Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
  • "wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
  • ", "Islamic state" refers to a general type of state that is Islamic. The present natural disambiguation ensures that the title is both unambiguous, neutral, common, and suitable for an encyclopaedic register."
  • ""Islamic State" is worse than POV/advocacy, it is incorrect. There is no such Islamic State. Move to DAESH instead."


Perhaps there are other examples but I personally think that it is fairly argued that the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"/"Islamic State" titling can be debated within the same context as other titles in POVNAME.

I am unsure what changes, if any, should be made to the actual project page text but wanted to flag up the issue, of their being two sides of neutrality, up for discussion. GregKaye 07:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The point behind POVNAME is that sometimes we have to allow the use of a potentially POV name as a title, in order to achieve a more basic criteria (the criteria of Recognizability). When a potentially POV name is used siginficantly more often than any other (ie it has become the WP:COMMONNAME) the need for Recognizability outweighs the need for Neutrality. Whether this applies to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"/"Islamic State" debate (or not) I will leave to others to determine. I don't know whether either name is used significantly more often than the other. That said... have you considered that another option that may be even more recognizable than either of those names... I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the most recognizable variant of the name is the abbreviation "ISIL" (pronounced "eye-sil") - as opposed to the name spelled out in full. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The point behind POVNAME is to supply a context for consideration of issues when, "Conflicts ... arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy." Remarkably editors at Talk:ISIL have objected to the application of potential NPOV issues and of the mention of WP:POVNAME as they claim, on the basis of wording, that POVNAME does not apply. As such it is presented that alleged NPOV issues cannot be considered in regard to the establishment of consensus. My contention remains that POVNAME presents policy from just one perspective. GregKaye 13:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You are reading more into POVNAME than was intended (and as someone who helped write it, I do know the original intent). I would actually agree with those who say that POVNAME does not actually apply to the choice presented in that RM, because both titles are POV. We are not presented with a choice between a "COMMON but POV" name and "non-COMMON but non-POV" name ... we are presented with two POV names (both of which are fairly common, although one may be slightly more common than the other) and have to figure out which best fits our criteria. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar In the second paragraph of my opening post I said, "I think that it is fair to consider that POVs may exist in two directions." Do you or do you not think that this is fair? GregKaye 12:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course POV can exist in two directions... but so what? That has nothing to do with what POVNAME is talking about. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar Re: "so what?"

Please note the context presented above, "Remarkably editors at Talk:ISIL have objected to the application of potential NPOV issues and of the mention of WP:POVNAME as they claim, on the basis of wording, that POVNAME does not apply."

Please also note that I wasn't actually proposing article content changes but wrote, "I am unsure what changes, if any, should be made to the actual project page text but wanted to flag up the issue, of their being two sides of neutrality, up for discussion."

Thank you for finally expressing any form of acknowledgement along the lines of "Of course POV can exist in two directions".

Sometimes it feels like it would be easier to extract teeth than to engage in discussion here.

GregKaye 03:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Engaging in discussion is easy. Reaching a consensus is often very difficult. I actually agree with those who say that POVNAME does not apply to the situation you bring to our attention ... but not with the reason they give for the non-applicability. I feel that POVNAME is irrelevant to the discussion you bring to our attention. POVNAME says nothing about choosing between two (or more) POV names. It addresses a completely different issue (when to favor a COMMON but POV title over an un-COMMON but more neutral title).
In other words... if the choice was Islamic State vs. (say) The group attempting to create a caliphate in the middle east, I would say that POVNAME would apply and favor Islamic State... and if the choice was Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant vs. The group attempting to create a caliphate in the middle east, I would say that POVNAME would apply and favor Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But POVNAME does not really apply to the choice between Islamic State vs Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ... since both choices are equally POV. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar I understand your view but like I have said: "The point behind POVNAME is to supply a context for consideration of issues when, "Conflicts ... arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy." These conflicts are handled within the talk pages of the articles concerned where all issues should be relevantly considered. You have not contributed to any of the RM discussions at Talk:ISIL and, with the exception to a one time edit where you supported a moratorium on page moves, have not contributed with signed comment on the page and I am unsure regarding the extent to which you have gone in considering the relevant issues. All the same you will be welcome to join any such discussion should it ever come up. I am happy to engage in a discussion here for the sake of weighing any issues regarding the naming of the specific article naming but I really just wanted to confirm that both sides of an argument could be considered.
Please keep an eye on WP:RM or put the ISIL talk page on your watchlist and please be involved in any related discussion should it again come up. However I would trust that, if you have not already done so, you would consider the specific arguments presented along the way. GregKaye 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Darwin as an example of COMMONNAME

Re this edit, it may be noted that Charles Darwin's full name was Charles Robert Darwin, distinguishing him from his little-known [deceased] uncle Charles Darwin, but he's generally known as Charles Darwin and his biographers use the intials CD. Don't know if this helps as an example or not. . . dave souza, talk 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed this as an example, but my edit was reverted. I don't think the title Charles Darwin is really an example of WP:COMMONNAME... it's more an example of disambiguation (specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether by the specific example of Charles Darwin or not it would be appreciated if there could be a stronger emphasis on <First name> <Last name> examples as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). The second paragraph of this project page begins: "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Another way of handling things might be to, in some way, incorporate mention of the <First name> <Last name> convention.
As editors who are regular at WP:RM may realise, these are issues that are raised with regularity such as in current discussion William Oliver Brown → Oliver Brown (activist). I was expecting to find a different discussion but this may have been closed early or promptly at the end of the week cycle.
Please can we have more coherent policy support for editor practice. Policy can also cover general practice in addition to its presentations of exceptional circumstances. GregKaye 09:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: please keep to the closer's comment at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Common name people - removing (the) pulp?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Again... My concern is that the examples in this section clearly focus on COMMONNAME... and this is best done by picking fairly obvious examples. We should avoid examples that also involve other issues (such as the need for disambiguation). Comparing William Henry Harrison with Benjamin Harrison might be a good example - because in William's case, the sources overwhelmingly include the "Henry" when discussing him... while in Benjamin's case sources rarely include his middle name (I note that our article on him does not even mention his middle name... did he have one?). Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Francis Schonken What in that close do you think is an issue? I personally did not think that it helped to have a close by an editor that I have rarely otherwise seen here or at WP:RM. Please as well keep in mind your own contributions to that discussion in which you suggested the use of the <First name> <Last name> examples: Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela and the <First name> <partial Last name> examples: Marie Curie and Angelina Jolie.
Blueboar while I have no objection to the use of the example Benjamin Harrison (except that, from what you say, this does not seem to be so much an example of WP:COMMONNAME but of WP:ONLYNAME) I really do not understand any objection of Charles Darwin as being a CLEAR example of WP:COMMONNAME. Charles Darwin is commonly known as Charles Darwin. What, in your interpretation, is his commonly recognizable name?? Please, please, what? This is like wading through treacle and I'm getting to the point where it seems people who are rarely involved in the practicalities of page moves are obstructing just because they can. Please. I am genuinely trying to make progress and I don't see that the reasonings against, or lack of them, make any sense.
Please, please make a review of previous threads touching on commonname issues for peoplw. Please, please pay some attention to the practical situations that arise at WP:RM. Please. All of the problems that I personally recall as arising relate to editors having added a middle name against the conventions of WP:COMMONNAME. Problems of people omitting a middle name against commonname rarely, if ever, crop up. We already have the example of John F. Kennedy to give an indication of a middle initial addition. In relation to real world editing can you give any indication as to why a <First name> <Middle name> <Last name> example might be needed or be in any way beneficial?
AGAIN The second paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) begins: "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Can we please, please, please have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this, PLEASE. Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see, desperately ill-informed objections. Please can you either explain any objections or simply stop, for no apparently earthly reason, objecting.
I am trying to make an edit that provides a crystal clear <First name> <Last name> example of commonname.
There is practical work to be done via locations such as WP:RM GregKaye 17:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, phrases like "desperately ill-informed objections" (to give just one example) are not helpful. Nor is your continual use of "please, please". Omnedon (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Omnedon Until the objections are explained I stick with my request "Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see, desperately ill-informed objections". None of this makes any sense to me. Yes I am frustrated with what genuinely seems to be nonsense but will warmly welcome explanation. If editors cannot do this it would be better if they were not involved at all. GregKaye 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg... Why do you think it so important to provide an example that fits the normal <First name> <Last name> convention? How will providing one help explain the concept of COMMONNAME? When explaining something like this, I think it would be more helpful to provide examples that are exceptions to the norm... (such as William Henry Harrison, or William Jennings Bryan). Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar Re: "so important". I think that it would be of benefit to the content to have a further <First name> <Last name> example. As said "AGAIN The second paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) begins: "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher."" and I think that it would be of benefit to "have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this"
Re: "How will providing one help explain the concept of COMMONNAME?" It doesn't. I personally think that WP:COMMONNAME is one of the most basic and simple concepts within Wikipedia and, at an extreme, perhaps no examples are needed to help to explain the concept. However, examples are given and they tend to be examples of exceptional situations all used to explain "commonname". How many people do you personally know who aren't primarily recognizable and definable according to a <First name> <Last name> format? What proportion of the people you know are known by names incorporating a middle initial or middle name? I don't know any. How many people do you know that are known nicknames? On a social basis I don't even know the real names of my friends "Moose" and "Scully" but they still constitute only a small proportion of the people I know. We live in a real world and people are primarily known according to the <First name> <Last name> designation format. That's just how it works at least in locations other than Wikipedia.
Let me polish off my WP:CRYSTALBALL with the complete speculation that, if Charles Darwin were not so well known and if he were not known for such things as published works, it might be perfectly possible for his Wikipedia article to be named Charles Robert Darwin. This might simply because he was mentioned on minimal occasion by that name in a context such as his Obituary. In the world of Wikipedia this type of situation happens with regularity.
It is possible for a never or rarely used in life middle name to be applied to a name in an utterly unnatural form of disambiguation with any concept of commonname being disguarded.
We have a list of people related "commonname" examples that typically support the concept of the inclusion of additions to the <First name> <Last name> format and we have WP:NATURAL which also encourages additions to the <First name> <Last name> format but, departing from real world realities, we present very few actual <First name> <Last name> examples. The one clear example of this that we have is François Mitterrand who doesn't come from a predominantly English speaking country. GregKaye 17:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
OK... so, since we have an example of "<Firstname> <Lastname>" with François Mitterrand why do we need another? I don't necessarily oppose having another example... I just don't think we need one. My concern is simply that Darwin is not a good example because that name has a potential disambiguation issue. I think we should avoid using ambiguous names as an example of COMMMONNAME ... That just confuses people (and besides disambiguation issues are discussed elsewhere in the policy and in their own guideline). If the consensus is that we do need another "<Firstname> <Lastname>" example of COMMONNAME, then I would ask that we choose a name that is not ambiguous. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar As I have mentioned time and again, articles are known to have been named in a <Firstname> <Middlename> <Lastname> format even though they were (or are) rarely (if ever) known in these terms while in life.
I am also by no means want to argue specifically for the use of Charles Darwin but think that the fact that there are other similarly named people mentioned in Charles Darwin (disambiguation) may, if anything, reinforce the issue of common name.
I am open to another preferably well known alternative name being added.
Alternately perhaps there would also be a possibility to remove the François Mitterrand, to present the typical convention of the "<Firstname> <Lastname>" format and to present the remaining list as, perhaps, "exceptions". GregKaye 10:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I still don't really understand why format is a COMMONNAME issue in the first place. To my mind, "format" is irrelevant to COMMONNAME. When applying COMMONNAME, we don't care what format a name takes. We simply examine the sources, see if one name stands out as being used significantly more often than others and, if so, we go with that... regardless of what format that COMMONNAME takes. The idea of "typical conventions" is meaningless when discussing COMMONNAME, because every COMMONNAME determination is unique unto itself. The result we get when examining subject A has no connection to the result we get when examining subject B.
That said, "typical conventions" and "format" do play a role in several of the other criteria. "Format" and conventions do come into play when simply applying WP:COMMONNAME isn't enough to entitle an article. For example, when multiple subject all share the same COMMONNAME, then WP:COMMONNAME isn't enough to entitle those articles. The need for disambiguation outweighs a simple COMMONNAME determination. Now... when discussing the best way to disambiguate a given article, it is appropriate to discuss format. We have two "typical" formats: a) Use a slightly less common alternative name or b) use the COMMONNAME, but add a parenthetical. Which of these is best depends on a host of sub-issues... but the appropriate place to spell those sub-issues out is at the WP:Disambiguation guideline. That's where it is appropriate to discuss "typical conventions" and "formats" (and give examples of those formats). (Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar Can you accept the view that people who have been rarely if ever known in life by a <Firstname> <Middlename> <Lastname> format or in a <Firstname> <Middle initial> <Lastname> format have been known to be presented in these ways in Wikipedia article titles? I have cited examples.
Can you accept the view that policy and guidance is here to act as a practical guide for practicing editors to foster good practice?
There are no examples that I can remember encountering in which a name has been contracted away from commonname but additions to names that make the name less commonly recognisable are well known to have been added to article titles.
Do you or anyone else have any practical objection to the swapping of Liberace (not: Władziu Liberace) for Charles Darwin (not: Charles Robert Darwin) or for another suitable and well known example a person who, like most people, is known by a designation in <Firstname> <Lastname> format?
GregKaye 12:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
My view is that the choice of "Charles Darwin" vs "Charles Robert Darwin" is not a WP:COMMONNAME issue... it's a disambiguation issue (and specifically a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue)... and thus should not be used as an example in the WP:COMMONNAME section. If you want to use it in the disambiguation section (as an example of PRIMARYTOPIC) that's fine with me.
As for the idea of replacing Liberace with Darwin... I don't insist on using Liberace as an example of COMMONNAME (there are lots of other examples we could use), but I would definitely object to replacing that example with Darwin. I think Liberace is a very clear example of COMMONNAME in action (especially since it has no disambiguation concerns)... I don't think Darwin is a clear example at all, so it would be a poor swap. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar I do not dispute that, in Wikipedia, the name "Charles Darwin" is, in addition to commonname concerns, "a disambiguation issue (and specifically a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue)" but surely, simultaneous to primary topic being assigned to Mr, Darwin, Charles, how can it be that "the choice of "Charles Darwin" vs "Charles Robert Darwin" is not a WP:COMMONNAME issue"? GregKaye 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

COMMONNAME says to use the most commonly recognizable name. PRIMARYTOPIC has to do with the most common usage of a name, term, etc. "Charles Darwin" would be both; most people searching for the string would not expect to get his uncle, and wouldn't recognize Darwin's name if we added his (theoretical) middle name. The choice therefore, is not a naming issue. You're swinging off into semantic minutiae here, to the point where the argument is losing clarity. Also, most people are known as "first, last" only in English, so their proper names might be reversed, as in Japanese or Korean. Therefore, "common usage" could go either way, and so we make sure to give the characters and romanization in native order as well. Similarly, if someone has a middle name no one really knows, it's not really common, though it would be legal. That's why Lord Dunsany redirects, as does Edward Plunkett, though Dunsany's legal name and title is "Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany" MSJapan (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are four examples illustrating that the common name loses middle names, and only one example that illustrates the middle name is retained in the common name (be it in abbreviated form). Really, no more "loss of middle name" examples are needed.
Again, please keep to the closure of Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Common name people - removing (the) pulp?, whether that closure is thought of as "helpful" or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The current listing is unbalanced and not reflective of the real world.
It presents three mononyms (Seriously Francis, what proportion of people are known by mononyms?)
It presents a single direct <first name> <last name> example in the form of (the non-English) François Mitterrand and two people with altered name Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) and

Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). Three Mononyms and three debatable <first name> <last name> examples is not balanced. Do you disagree? GregKaye 06:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is just using examples where there is some likelihood of confusion. Firstname Lastname is intuitive in English and doesn't really need examples. The "balance" to which you refer would not be an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Curie proposal

  • How about replacing "Syahrini (not: Rini Fatimah Jaelani)" by "Marie Curie (not: Marie Skłodowska-Curie)":
    • Proposal keeps within the closure of Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Common name people - removing (the) pulp? ("...I can only suggest that single changes are proposed...")
    • For all objections raised by Greg against the current list there's no downside afaics, and it would be an improvement with regard to several of these objections;
    • Does not introduce yet another "loss of middle name" example, to which there is opposition (including by me);
    • One "single name pseudonym" example less (there are still two like that in the list of examples);
    • Taken as a whole I don't think Curie is less recognisable for many readers than Syahrini, so afaics it is a clear policy-level example;
    • Curie is afaics a stable example (stable enough for policy-level);
    • The only (small) downside I could see is that it illustrates "loss of maiden name after marriage", while the example list does not yet include examples of "retention of maiden name after marriage", so that may be a next step, for the time being I however keep to the recommendation of proposing one change at a time, and afaik loss of maiden name is more frequent for the common names used at Wikipedia, than retention of maiden names, so afaics we're already covering the largest group of (non-pseudonym) women after mariage with this example.
    • Re. "reflective of the real world" – the list of examples illustrates a principle, which also applies to many "real world" examples that cannot be used as an example (e.g., Jody Williams can not be used as an example while there's no alternative "less common" name; Hillary Clinton can not be used while too contentious, Justine Henin Hardenne cannot be used as example of retention of maiden name after marriage while she divorced and the page was moved after that, etc..., etc...); and to other "real world" examples the common name principle doesn't apply, e.g. Oprah Winfrey is not an illustration of the "common name" principle (Oprah being the common name for that example); so "reflective of the real world" is, to a large extent, a red herring – the examples are always going to be selected based on many factors, being illustrative for the principle being more important than being demographically, or in whatever other sense, balanced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to harmonise WP:CRITERIA - Conciseness with Recognizability

Project page content at WP:CRITERIA currently presents:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • ...
  • ...
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

I propose that the change be made so that the "Conciseness" content to read:

  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary for someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area to identify the article's subject and to distinguish it from other subjects.

I think it is will help clarify the guideline if we try to clarify the extent of the people we are trying to help.

I also think that the proposed insertion of "to" (in: "and to distinguish it from other subjects") is of use so as to ensure that the identification of a article's subject can be better addressed as a stand alone issue and not merely a subsidiary part of the process of differentiation process of one subject title from another.

As a supplementary thought I also think that (if possible) it might be worth clarifying an interpretation of "subject area" as I think that this may potentially be considered by different editors at any of a number of different tiers of specialisation.

All the same I still find the "no longer than necessary" wording to be extremely dubious.

Our project page content asserts that "it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"" while Britannica, as just one of many examples, more descriptively presents Queen (British rock group) GregKaye 09:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @GregKaye: as I told you earlier today, I think this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how WP:CRITERIA works. There is no need to make the individual criteria "look more like one another", so that, ultimately, their number can be reduced. It has been tried, and it is not workable, not at WP:RM, nor elsewhere in the application of article titling guidance.
Five is the number and it is workable: other principles would like to get in ("self-identification", "official" names, etc.) so it really is, and has been, a formidable task to condense what is essential to only five clear principles, but not one of them is redundant for keeping naming discussions well-structured, and keep argumentation clear and policy-based.
In sum: oppose proposed rewrite, no need for it has been demonstrated, solution in search of a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Francis Schonken There is no attempt "to make the individual criteria "look more like one another"" but for Conciseness to be self explanatory and to say directly how it is meant to practically apply.
In what way do you see the second half of your first paragraph or any of your second paragraph, beginning "Five is the number and it is workable", to have any relevance here? I ask this in context that you have just accused me of "rambling" at WT:Disambiguation.
GregKaye 12:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. copying part of the first criterion into the fourth makes that principle, intended or not, look more like the first
  2. Re second half of first paragraph: I'm not out of touch with naming issues, contrary to what you have been contending elsewhere.
  3. Re. second paragraph: "..five clear principles..." (bolding added), they're less clear (distinct) when more looking like one another (see #1) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Francis Schonken
  1. I am fine if people have valid objections but please do not disparage a suggestion regarding policy content as being merely cosmetic.
  2. I had not in any way seen the second half of your first paragraph as having any relevance within this thread and have only just recognised your content as a violation of AGF.
  3. Your second paragraph would only have relevance if I had been editing in bad faith. I was not and it does not.
GregKaye 14:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Cosmetic? Didn't say nor intended any of the sort. The proposal muddles the distinction between criteria 1 and 4, which is all but a cosmetic change.
  2. You've tried to discredit my involvement in article titling issues, which is not an act of AGF, and includes relevance for this discussion. If we can put that behind us, fine, I'm all for it. So please, as I suggested, ammend your talk page style more in line with "Comment on content, not on the contributor" policy.
  3. No, the relevance is about keeping the content of the principles clear, which I defend, doesn't assume anything about intentions of other editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
First, without citation, you imply my "fundamental misunderstanding of how WP:CRITERIA works"
Then you imply that my edit is "to make the individual criteria "look more like one another""
You do this in the context of then implying that my intention, stull in regard to WP:CRITERIA, is "so that, ultimately, their number can be reduced."
You then add on the concept of failure and non-workability in regard to something that, in reality, was nowhere in my mind.}}"
You then underline your previously made implication that I intended to reduce the number of criteria by stating your view, which may be valid, that the current number of criteria is the only one that is workable.
It utterly astounds me that in other locations you criticise me for going off topic.
GregKaye 17:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although the suggested change seems sensible at first sight, WP:AT should be changed only in response to a clearly demonstrated need following the establishment of a widespread consensus. As Francis Schonken writes above, this is a solution in search of a problem. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wordiness without benefit. Almost funny to include wordiness in the definition of conciseness. Actually, "for someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area" can be taken as a caveat to be applied to nearly everything in Wikipedia rules. It could be added to everything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We need to tighten the language of our policies, not add additional unnecessary words. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's nothing wrong with related criteria. In accounting, revenue recognition and realization are related, because they both deal with revenue, but their financial impacts are very different, because taxability requires both, and any time it is one or the other, it isn't taxable. Similarly, titles require both conciseness and precision to work. "Bumblebee" by itself could be a song, a toy, a character, an insect, etc. So if we need to add words to add precision, clearly conciseness and recognizability are separate but related concepts which cannot be combined. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This change fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the criteria and their meaning. Recognizability is unrelated to conciseness; they're totally severable concerns that operate on their own.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Queen - to rock, or not to rock, could there be a question?

changed heading from "Queen - to rock, or not to rock, can there be a question?" so as to more accurately present the content of the proposal. GregKaye 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica presents an article titling as Queen (British rock group) and, especially within this context, I think that text at WP:AT#Disambiguation to be both unnecessarily prescriptive and bordering on slander.

This text currently states:

  • "... According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"..."

Seeing that the current section of text is entitled "disambiguation", the reference to "necessary" is most logically read to say "... use only as much additional detail as necessary (for disambiguation)" but this, as far as I can see, is in direct contradiction to examples that have only just been given in the earlier text. We had only just been shown that acceptable titles can include: Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) even though titles such as Leeds North West and M-185 would, on there own, not be ambiguous.

Ironically the instruction "use only as much additional detail as necessary" is, itself, ambiguous.

As far as the second sentence is concerned I would prefer to present something like:

GregKaye 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I just did some searches
"queen" "rock" ("freddie mercury" OR "Brian May") got "About 943,000 results"
"queen" "band" ("freddie mercury" OR "Brian May") got "About 804,000 results"
How is it "inappropriate" to describe Queen as a "rock band"? No one will look at the Britannica titling and assume that there must be a non-British rock group called Queen and similar. GregKaye 05:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Obvious missing stat: "queen" "rock band" ("freddie mercury" OR "Brian May") got only "About 397,000 results". Oops. Clearly "band" wins, since "Queen (rock)" won't work (Queen is not a kind of stone).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Guidelines shouldn't say "may be considered inappropriate" (it's not helpful to editors). You (still) don't seem to understand why the guideline on wp says "use only as much additional detail as necessary". If "Queen (rock band)" is better than "Queen (band)" then similar logic would suggest that "Queen (English rock band)" would be even better... DexDor (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
DexDor Do you then approve of Wikipedia WP:ASSERTing that "... it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band)..." despite the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica clearly presents: Queen (British rock group)
In the context of disagreement on presentation, please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS that I "(still) don't seem to understand why the guideline on wp says "use only as much additional detail as necessary"". Please do not dogmatically assert that you are right before even entering into debate.
I believe I understand fully why it says this but fundamentally disagree with the absolutist extent of this assertion. Wikipedia titling is comparatively impoverished in comparison to equivalent titlings of Britannica amongst other examples and sometimes our titles don't even make coherent sense. Despite the clear instruction that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary we use blatant (double adjective) titles such as African American. African American what? NO ONE else does this!!! In comparison a sensible information provider like Britannica will present African American literature and African Americans (people).
I personally think that guideline should instead say something along the lines of, "use only as much additional detail as will practically help readers identify the subject".
Do you really want to keep the Queen text as it is? Why?
How is the current, I think, dogmatic assertion any more "helpful to editors" than my begrudging proposed text? "Helpful" in what way?
Re: ".. (English rock band)" please see Ngrams on: British rock band,British rock group,English rock band,English rock group [4]
GregKaye 08:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to remove the following sentence from the first paragraph of the section on disambiguation:

For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen".

Rationale: the example is redundant at that point: the paragraphs explaining disambiguated article title formats contain enough examples and clarifications to illustrate how the principle is applied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As an intermediate solution the word "inappropriate" could be replaced by the less laden term "redundant", until we find agreement on suitable examples. I'll implement this, and see whether this is a useful step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This would still assert that an informative provision of a word (that only has a title cost of five characters) as being "redundant". Again Britannica have apparently not considered the wording to be either inappropriate or redundant but have used the content in a readily recognizable titling as:
Queen | British rock group | Britannica.com
as opposed to:
Queen (band) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Please note those last three (redudant?) words
I think that the choice of which is better is as much a matter of opinion as issues of redundancy.
Support removal the proposal being appreciated. GregKaye 09:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both proposed changes - seems like a "rock" solid example to establish the concept in the introduction of the section; different people pick up information in different ways. How Britannica does things is not relevant: we could systematically use longer, more descriptive titles and still have an encyclopedia that worked just as well, but early on we chose not to do it that way. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
VQuakr If it were a decision made early on and if there are other examples of good practice that might challenge the wisdom of this approach, why carve the instruction out of rock. The usage can certainly not be regarded as "inappropriate" in every sense. GregKaye 06:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: If it were a decision made early on... I agree, but it is not early on so this sentence is not very relevant. The usage can certainly not be regarded as "inappropriate" in every sense. Absolutely true, but it is not remotely being presented as "inappropriate in every sense." Only in the sense of its usage here, on this specific website. This is a policy page, not an article. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
VQuakr I also quite agree with your statement regarding, "Only in the sense of its usage here" but when you present this as "on this specific website" I am increasingly viewing this as on "planet Wikipedia". The vast majority of the titles on topics presented by other sources provide far more topic relevant information than out, I think, comparatively impoverished titling. On top of that we present self convincing and potentially brainwashing assertions such as that it is "it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)"". Why? Why is it inappropriate. At the very least (and while I recognise that this is not an article) this fails WP:CITE. An absolute is being claimed as if to say that it was normal behaviour. It is not. Few organisations follow a minimalist titling policy such as we follow even when the organisation has a specialism in types of content presented which, in itself, provides a context.
We impose relatively minimalist titling. We present "navigation" as "disambiguation". We do nothing in situations when non commonname contents are presented such as when people (who were/are generally known by a <first name> <last name> designations in life) are given non common name middle initial/middle name inclusive (and against commonname) designations in Wikipedia. I appreciate that the context of your comments is in specific reference to activity here. GregKaye 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I am increasingly viewing this as on "planet Wikipedia". Yes. Absolutely. I suggest you avoid the Sisyphean task of trying to change Wikipedia's weirdness, but if you wish to go about it do not start with an individual technical policy page. Nearly everything anyone writes on a policy talk page will be in the context of "planet Wikipedia," which is why what Britannica or anyone else does is wholly irrelevant. Re "inappropriate," because it is not what we do on this website. No one is claiming that what we do is universally ideal or objectively "normal." What I do say though, is that there is intrinsic value in maintaining the status quo on something as fundamental as article titling standards. Not sure why you bring up firstname/lastname as I see no discussion of that in this section. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr The Sisyphean comment is quite humorous but, while I do not deny there being a boulder, why should there be a hill? Policy makes these absolutist, unreferenced and self justifying claims so as to portray Wikipedian ways as being the way that things are done. GregKaye 02:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the Dewey decimal system. Is it perfect? Heck no. It is better than letting each librarian develop their own organizational system? Heck yes. We chose a system, and changing midstream would be hugely disruptive. It doesn't mean that our way is the only way or even the best way; it merely means that our way is our way. VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The dewey decimal system is a system of decimalised numbered codings. Title naming policies relate to explanatory presentations of page contents. These are two very different things. If our only business is to present a differentiating system then certainly numbers would be enough.
Currently at WP:RM there is link to the discussion: Talk:Skid_(automobile)#Requested move 14 August 2015 which proposes: Skid (automobile) → Skid (vehicle). In response I suggested: Skid (vehicle motion) or Skid (driving) on the basis that the "skid" mentioned is not a part of the vehicle.
In relation to Egyptian gods our articles present: Apt (Egyptian), Hapi (Nile god), Min (god), Shu (Egyptian god). In these case I do not think that it is inappropriate to describe Shu as an "Egyptian god", Within text we refer to "Mohammed" as being an "Islamic prophet" as to describe him as a prophet would side with pov. Issues are not always cut and dried any yet policy presents dogmatic and unjustified statements.
There is nothing intrinsically inappropriate about describing Queen as a rock band. GregKaye 07:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd move
... for none of which a rewrite of WP:AT is needed; neither would such rewrite be needed for improvement of the disambiguation of articles on deities and prophets of various religions.
Re. "There is nothing intrinsically inappropriate about describing Queen as a rock band". The problem is with the use of the word "intrinsically": of course in Wikipedia guidance terminology is used as intuitive as possible, that doesn't mean that, for instance, every time when we use the word "template" all "intrinsic" meanings of that word are covered: outside article namespace the expression "template" would invariably indicate a page in Wikipedia's template namespace, which has little to do with the full range of "intrinsic" meanings of the word "template"; all Wikipedia guidance does this in varying degrees (Wikipedia's "notability" concept for instance being one of those terms most known for being divergent from the "intrinsic" meaning of the term). No apologies are needed for that: any manual (and in that sense Wikipedia's guidance pages are the "manual" on how to use the encyclopedia) would use specific terminology (diverging from the full extent of "intrinsic" meanings those terms can have) relating to the object for which the manual is written. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
On "skid" I agree with the suggestion of the move:
Perhaps the Queen text might have a reading such as: "For example, there is no requirement for the sake of disambiguation to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"..."
BTW, I personally have no problem with the specific titling of contesting the titling of (what Dan Le Sac and Scroobius Pip, might describe as) "just a band" type articles. Many article titles may serve readers best in short form, arguably, "Skid" may be one of them. However, I do not think that this discounts the view that readers needs might also be well met, in some circumstances, with titles with slightly more explanatory content.
My main objection is to unnecessary layers of instruction. Editors should be free to make appropriate decisions on a case by case basis. GregKaye 19:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
On your last comment... all I can say is "Amen". To me, the most important line in this entire policy is:
  • "These should be seen as goals, not as rules.
For every example where the consensus favored a specific title format, we can come up with a counter example where consensus favored something different - That's appropriate... flexibility is intentionally written into the policy. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I think though the effect is that while flexibility is written into the policy in effect as a hatnote or sidenote, in practice policy is written in absolutist terms. To rearrange those words as a question, if the intention is that flexibility be written into policy, why isn't this done?
I do not dispute that, in the context of other similarly themed Wikipedia articles, it may be inappropriate to apply a "rock band" description to Queen but would argue that this has at least as much to do with WP:CRITERIA: Consistency than to do with anything else. GregKaye 11:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons already given by others. The short version is that WP:ISNOT Britannica; we have our own rules, one of which is conciseness. Queen (band) is sufficient until the day there's a notable zydeco or country or whatever band also named Queen. Unless that has become the case, an argument for "Queen (rock band)" just to include "rock" because you think it's important/defining/common in thinking about the band, is indistinguishable from an argument to name the article "Queen (English rock band)" or "Queen (English rock band with Freddie Mercury in it)". The case being made under pressure by the proponent does not rock me, is not a champion, and is lacking in rhapsody, though it might be a little bohemian.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - conciseness is awesome Red Slash 12:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Naturalness and searching

The following passage was cited in a discussion above.

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.

As redirects are essentially alternate titles for search purposes, this statement is misleading and can confuse move discussions, and should be changed to:

Naturalness – The title is one that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.

Any objection, and why? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Re. "was cited in a discussion above" – where? the concept of naturalness is used a few times in discussions above, without citing its definition, indicating that the definition has no problems.
  • Re. "misleading and can confuse move discussions" – not sure what problem needs solving: could you give examples where the "... (one that) readers are likely to look or search for..." part would be "misleading and can confuse move discussions". To me, on first sight, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Google searches don't find redirect titles that aren't present in the article, so naturalness in searches is relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a little off topic, but I just want to remind everyone that "Naturalness" isn't always a clear cut thing... there might well be more than one "Natural" title for a topic (just as there might be more than one Recognizable title, more than one Precise title, more than one Concise title and more than one Consistent title). If one title stands out as being significantly more "Natural" than others, we would favor that one over others ... but sometimes one does not stand out. Sometimes several potential titles might be equally Natural (or equally Recognizable, Precise, Concise, or Consistent). That's why we describe the five criteria as "goals" and not "rules". Finding the best article title requires finding a balance between multiple criteria. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Francis Schonken - It was cited near the beginning of #"Death of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe" vs "John Doe" using a link to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
  • Francis Schonken - I'm sure I could produce multiple examples of move discussions where the argument was used that "the article should be named x because that is what readers will search for." Can we stipulate that they exist? With correct use of redirects, that is a flawed argument which wastes time in the discussion. It could also potentially result in a bad move decision, since many editors do not fully understand redirects or fail to consider them in these discussions.
  • Peter coxhead - It's very wikicentric to assume that someone searching for x using Google is only interested, or even mainly interested, in the Wikipedia article about x. They could very well be looking for whatever pages about x that Google Search, in its infinite wisdom and intelligence, deems most useful to them. We are not the only good information resource on the web. Wikipedia will be very high in the results, whether the article title is an exact match for their search argument or not. For me, search for "sandra bland" currently gives Death of Sandra Bland as the #3 hit after the "In the news" section. Even if the title "Sandra Bland" would make that #2 or #1, is that important enough to influence titling decisions? Not in my opinion. Over time, more and more people will certainly learn: If you want only Wikipedia, and you don't want to have to visually scan downward a few inches (centimetres), search in Wikipedia. My guess is that most will opt to visually scan downward a few inches; that would be my choice if I didn't have a bookmark button for Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss: note that I wrote redirect titles that aren't present in the article, so your example is irrelevant. Of course there are other information sources, but here we should be working together to promote Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd be very interested to read some kind of high-level mission statement that supports that idea. To my mind, Wikipedia will succeed or fail on its merits, not on its placement in Google searches. We promote Wikipedia by producing good content. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course good content is the most important, but it's useless if not found. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You underestimate 95% of computer/Internet users. If not in the first page of Google hits, which is very rare in my experience, it is all found at en.wikipedia.org. We could go on forever. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss if you look at the very first version of this page available in the history (2001) its style is a mixture of talk page and policy page and it contains the sentence "We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in other search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia." In those days Wikipedia was not automatically given the privilege of a high weighting by Google and other search engines so it was more important then, than it is now, to craft articles so that they would appear higher up the rankings. Google came to recognise that while not perfect, Wikipedia articles tended to present information that would be useful to their searchers and was unlikely to be false flag article (the content corresponded to the title). So while at the moment Wikipedia benefits from a symbiotic relationship with search engines, it is still important to the Wikipedia community to make sure that Wikipedia articles remain high in the list when a search is made on a topic, whether this is stated explicitly or implicitly in this policy. -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This edit? As said this indicates that the definition has no problems. Mandruss' reaction resumes to something like "I don't like the argument being used in a discussion". Yeah sure, not something for which policy should be rewritten.
Really no problem has been demonstrated (apart from "I don't like it"). This is what people would be looking for is one of many valid arguments in a move discussion, certainly not the only one (there are five criteria, and this is half of the argument of one of these five). Valid argument, not exclusive argument. If you can't live with "...in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others..." than we'd need to rewrite the foundation of the policy, to which I oppose. And indeed, trying to overrule a valid consideration so that it never can be weighed in, I oppose to that too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
As my comments did not remotely resemble "I don't like it", I'm at a loss to respond to yours, so I guess we'll leave it there and hope for others. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you show a problem? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly it's not worth it to me to go hunt down multiple actual bad move decisions resulting from the use of that argument, or multiple cases where the argument resulted in wasted time. How many examples would be sufficient to win this point — five? fifty? — and how would I prove the cause and effect to your satisfaction? I have no trouble imagining that as a real potential problem, using knowledge and reasoning; but, if others do, I'm prepared to lose this debate for failure to produce evidence supporting my argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Sophistry – I didn't suggest a mathematical formula. Just show something that could make others feel the problem, if they dont (yet), like I don't (yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Reading #First paragraph above, I can see there is more to this than I knew; I haven't been involved in that. My thinking has been largely confined to the simpler cases of articles about people, such as Death of Sandra Bland. But I think my argument still applies in those cases, and I think the Naturalness thing could be clarified to address that, although I'm not sure how at this point. As an example, a similar misapplication of the search/redirect relationship was made in the discussion of move from Benjamin C. Bradlee to Ben Bradlee per COMMONNAME. An editor said the move was unnecessary because the Ben Bradlee redirect already took readers to that article. While that was true, it was not a valid argument against COMMONNAME. Although the argument failed there, it might succeed in other similar cases, and I've felt it would be worth trying to avert that misunderstanding and related ones. Or maybe it would be unjustifiable instruction creep. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks,
  • Re. Sandra Bland: I think it is a valid consideration in that context, but indeed with little weight (compared to the PRECISION consideration). Can't see "confusion" or "misleading" there: RM discussions are only sensible when different CRITERIA go in different directions, and a decision has to be made which of them carry the most weight.
  • Re. Talk:Ben Bradlee#Requested move: if anything this confirms the validity of the "readers are likely to look or search for" part: as was pointed out in that discussion the "editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles" part was virtually unusable while over time nearly all mainspace links had been implemented with the less common form of the name. Consequently the page was renamed to the "The title ... that readers are likely to look or search for", not to the "The title (that was most used) to link to the article from other articles". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I support getting away from the "searches for" guess work, it is not the job of titles to help search engines that do a far better job already. "Would expect" for example might be better. However, cannot support circular definitions. A definition of naturalness cannot refer to any word based on "natural". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:CRITERIA are not dictionary definitions of five words, it is about how supposedly *known* concepts (like recognizability etc) are applied in the context of article titling. So, that really makes no sense what you're saying here. The "Recognizability" criterion is explained using "recognize" (which the policy page supposes to be a concept that doesn't need no further explanation: if it isn't clear, look it up in a dictionary)
    Similarly "Naturalness" in the context of article titling is explained using the word "natural", which you're supposed to understand or look up in a dictionary. (And Mandruss doesn't even propose a change to that part of the Criterion description)
    Etc. Please leave irrelevant sophistry out of this discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Your tolerance to circular definitions is surprising. What do you think the purpose of the policy is? Is it to explain to newcomers, or is it high English gameplay amongst self-selecting Wikipedia elites? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, the purpose of Wikipedia policy is not to write dictionary definitions of English words. Those words are part of the English language. Wiktionary, as an example, contains dictionary definitions for such words as wikt:recognizability (which uses wikt:recognize to explain the concept), wikt:recognizable (which also uses wikt:recognize to explain that concept), and wikt:recognize (which lists several meanings of that word). The purpose of policy is to use these words, supposedly understandable to the readers, in the context of the policy. Occasionally this involves specifying a specific meaning the word has in the context (e.g. the notability concept is quite specific within WP:AfD and Wikipedia guidance surroundings), none of this is however a dictionary definition of any of these words. E.g. if you'd read WP:NOTABILITY as a dictionary definition of that word you'd get a wrong understanding of the word in the English language. In general it's not helpful to explain every word used in policy (not even all of its main concepts): you'd treat readers as dumbasses, and burden policy to the point of being unreadable while confusing the key points of the policy with general explanations that have nothing to do with the policy as such. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Francis, what you are saying of definitions is correct but irrelevant.
"The purpose of policy is to use these words, supposedly understandable to the readers, in the context of the policy." What confused nonsense. All sorts or irrelevant gibberish can be written to satisfy those conditions. The purpose of policy is to convey to editors a description of preferred practice. An essay using words that is understandable and related to policy is not what belongs under a {{policy}} tag.
Notability, a guideline, actually a pseudo-policy, which has attracted far wider interested attention that this policy, is much better structured. Noting this an an important example of where the word has a Wikipedia-specific term-or-art definition different to any dictionary definition, the guideline at no point assumes knowledge of external definitions, but makes a valiant attempt to define the Wikipedia term objectively. The WP:GNG. For other examples of policy written clearly, directly, and avoiding re-definitions of works, and linking to mainspace articles for definitions of important concepts, see WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.
In this case, WP:Article Titles, some words, particularly "Natural", also "precise", and several others, are used with nuance. See Blueboar 11:34, 8 August 2015 above. "Naturalness" isn't always a clear cut thing.... We are obviously discussing a definition of "naturalness", whether a re-definition, or a nuanced definition, or whatever. Also, especially confusing, is that "naturalness" and WP:NATURAL are different things.
Of course it's never helpful to explain every word used. What an absurd point. However, it is always important to define key words used with nuance that may mean different things to different people. If you think making policy accessible to newcomers reading at face value means you are writing for dumbasses, then you should get out of policy space.
Getting to the point of the suggestion, I agree with PBS below and Blueboar above. I agree that the poorly defined sentiments, what people naturally search for, what people naturally link, is good. The embedded messages in the current text are good, but I agree with the obvious implication of this thread, that the current text could be improved.
The suggestion I would offer for improving the current text, removing apparent circular definitions, avoiding the problematic term (but not concept) "search for", and writing simply and directly in the language of an editor with just a little experience, is:
Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to expect to to host, or lead to, the article; and is a topic-name that editors would find suitable to use to link, without piping, to the article from other articles.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose rewording along these lines: confusing. "lead to" may apply to redirects, WP:CRITERIA is about articles (not redirect pages). More words for a less suitable policy text. Please leave "piping" out of it, and keep the wording as it is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
People who enter plausible titles directly into the url, or into the search box and press "go", will be satisfied by redirects, and so reference to redirects would be a good thing. A topic may have multiple natural titles. Without the "lead to", multiple natural titles means that the policy is prescribe a conflict.
More words, but not too many more, achieves clarity for face-value reading. The existing text is more like a riddle requiring decipherment.
Piping is extremely relevant to "would naturally use to link to the article from other articles", because a sometimes proffered rationale is to make inline intrawiki linking natural without resort to piping. Explicit reference to this "without piping" greatly clarifies the concept being referred to as naturalness, which is not something that comes from any dictionary definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Re. redirects: this is not the subject of this part of the policy: WP:CRITERIA is about determining the article title where the content is, not redirects. Yes, redirects can satisfy "finding" the article, and, yes, redirects should be in place when there are common synonyms. This part of the policy is about preferably giving precedence to the article title that minimizes the need to reach the article content via redirects, as one among five criteria.
So indeed the rewording proposal is confusing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

One reason for the wording about editors is to do with the problems unique names which have bee saved under articles with longer names which would usually be used for disambiguation. An example that came up on this page was St Botolph's Church (Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34#hopelessly vague title). If one linked to the natural name "St Botolph's Church" it was to a red link. So editors not unreasonably concluded that an article did not exist. In fact several St Botolph's Church articles existed at the time, one of which may have been the correct one. The point is that if someone wants writes an article on "St Botolph's Church" and one already exists then they have a choice of a hatnote or a disambiguation page, and everyone can then navigate to the appropriate article if it has been written. The reason why pre-emptive disambiguation is problematic, is because what is an obvious extension to the natural name for one editor may not be obvious to another (particularly if they are relatively new to Wikipedia, or they are writing an article which belongs to a project that has a disambiguation rule, but the editor is unaware that such a project exists, or that this new article falls under the remit of that project. Keeping the "editors would naturally use to link to..." helps reduce theses sorts of problems. -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Precision", "Conciseness" do not really cover this in the same way. For example "Naturalness" helps explain and justify "WP:USPLACE". It is quite common for Americans to describe places by name, location, it is far less common for Brits to do the same thing. A name like Birmingham, Alabama is not uncommon usage in American English and is "natural", Birmingham, West Midlands? Birmingham, England?Birmingham, United Kingdom? are all little used in British English. Another similar example is Cambridge and Cambridge, Massachusetts. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Comment Has any research been conducted in relationship between title forms and the forms of links that are used to access them? On the basis of any actual findings can anyone comment on any perceived need to write titles in the form of links?
  2. Wikipedia already acts, in some ways, like an editor's club. As an example that I have recently brought to light, while the rest of the world primarily calls navigation pages, "navigation pages", we label habitually such a page as a "... (disambiguation)". I am very dubious about any attempt to further remove reader based consideration from Wikipedia policy.
On a side notes, I am generally dubious in regard to the application of Naturalness (which, quite ironically, often pulls in the reverse direction of WP:NATURAL). There is nothing wrong with full and descriptive titling of forms that readers can readily reference to find appropriate contents. In this regard I compiled some, I think, relevant content at Wikipedia:List of Johns whose Britannica article titles contain broad description. In the case of say: John Bacon (American clergyman and legislator) I think that it may be possible for a make searches such as "John Bacon clergyman" or "John Bacon legislator" or with synonyms of the search terms presented.
In my view a natural title is one that contains components that readers will look for. Who cares about editor priorities? It is the reader that counts. GregKaye 04:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: Naturalness (which, quite ironically, often pulls in the reverse direction of WP:NATURAL) – Yeah, we do still need to revisit that did-not-agree-on-a-consensus-direction mess of counter-proposals about this stuff from a month or two ago. @Francis Schonken:. Maybe its time to try again; I think most of the conflict was between your approach to the question and mine, on how to make better sense in the WP:AT#DAB section, and I'll endeavor to try to find common ground if you will.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors are also readers, GregKaye. Another use of Natural is word ordering. Wikipeida early on could have chosen to follow many other works and used "Smith, John", but it was decided early on to use the natural word ordering of "John Smith". -- PBS (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure)

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this is how we want to handle article titling discussions

Is it just me, or doesn't this look like an auto-canvassing system for wikiprojects to have undue influence over "their" article titles?: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Increasing participation in RM discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it will give Wikiprojects more influence than they currently have... the question is whether that influence is undue or appropriate? Members of Wikiprojects are likely to know the sources relating to their topics (and thus are probably the best people to help with RECOGNIZABILITY/COMMONNAME determinations). They are likely to be the ones who would link to the title in other articles (and thus are the best to help determine which title is most NATURAL). They certainly would know the other titles in their project area (and so can advise us on CONSISTENCY). On the other hand they might be biased towards "their" article in dab disputes over PRIMARY TOPIC. All in all, I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it is very good. Subject orientated WikiProjects mean to act in the best interests of the project, as do others. If there is a clash of opinions, then far better to involve the WikiProjects than not. With disagreement comes discussion and two-way information transfer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that notification is important. Many discussions recently have had very few participants, which can result in poor decisions or often a failure to make any decision as the closer rightly feels the subject hasn't been properly discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I firmly predict this is not going to be a net positive, for the same reason that WP:RM has been one: Broad participation reflects community will, while a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS often reflects nothing but one or two people's incessant demands. "Subject orientated WikiProjects mean to act in the best interests of the project", yes (usually), but "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and very often their idea of "the best interests of the project" is really "the best interests of some group outside the project on how to they want to change the project to reflect their own preferences, goals, and values". I say that as founder/co-founder of various wikiprojects; I have nothing against them when they're writing content and digging up sources, in WP:CORE ways. Typically what happens when things go south is someone obsessive about some particular thing WP itself has no interest in promoting sees WP as a vehicle for that promotion, and through force of personality and direct recruiting slowly takes over a wikiproject with their buddies until it's serving external interests. Even when this is done with the best intentions ("It's really important that WP do it our way to look more [professional/important/knowledgeable/current/whatever]") it's hardly harmless, and when it's done for propagandistic reasons, as seems to be going on with certain national or other current interests, it's a more obvious problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Asian names

East-Asian, Vietnamese, Hungarian, and various African tribal names often use the surname first, and the personal name last, on Wikipedia this seems to be really, really inconsistent in articles preferring it one way in one article and another in another article, for example in the article Tanaka Chigaku the family name Tanaka (田中) is used before the personal name, but in the article Kakuei Tanaka it's styled the opposite, can we just please have one standard? --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer for us to use native styles, family name - personal name.
--Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I was speaking in generalities, Francis. Generally (which means not always), we tend to give the most weight to Recognizability (as expressed in WP:COMMONNAME), and the least weight to Consistency. But that does not mean we give never give weight to Consistency. Of course "it all depends". Yes, there there have been specific cases where Consistency has been given the most weight (that's one reason why it is listed as one of the basic criteria/goals)... but I would argue that there are more cases where it wasn't - especially when it bumps up against the goal of Recognizability.
Note that in the case of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Order of names, the convention itself accounts for this... saying: There is an exception for people whose Chinese name is familiar but with English ordering (for example, Wen Ho Lee). Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
... and for making clear that consistency upon "native styles, family name - personal name" can not be achieved under current guidance for Chinese names. So this is no WP:AT matter, sort it out with the applicable guideline.
Note that for Hungarian names the consistency is written directly in WP:NCP#People from countries where the surname comes first: "With Hungarian names, use Western name order (given name before surname)", so no WP:AT matter either. Sort it out at WT:NCP.
Imposing consistency at policy level, overriding applicable naming conventions guidelines (that may depend in varying degree on consistency), will not work, while at policy level there is no general preference for consistency among the five criteria. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's even messier than it seems. There's been lots of strife about Japanese name order lately, and we are doing some pretty ridiculous things (e.g. "Hikaru Utada" which should be at Utada Hikaru; she grew up half in Japan half in California, and to this day still uses family-name first order, which can be seen on all of her albums where she uses her full name – some were released under the stage name "Utada" alone). And why are we using Mao Zedong, a WP:RECENTISM, when the vast majority of material published about Mao referred to him as Mao Tse-Tung (or some slight variant of that, like Mao Tse Tung, Mao Tse-tung)? Zedong is certainly not the WP:COMMONNAME, and Mao Tse-tung (or perhaps Mao Ze-dong, if this new spelling is certain to stay) would better suit current real-world Chinese name romanization conventions. How on earth do we have Lao Tzu at "Laozi", a spelling almost unknown in reliable sources except very recent ones? (And it's not the even the only postmodernism of this sort that does show up in sources; I think I've seen Laodze far more often than Laozi, though the vast majority of editions of the Tao Te Ching still use "Lao Tzu" or "Lao-tzu"). And if we're going with "Laozi", why isn't the work at the article title Daodejing?

The point being, either we need to say AT policy means something, or that it doesn't. Not that it means something when this camp wants it to, but when some other camp wants to make up their own guidelines then policy no longer applies. And after we decide (obviously) that policy means something, we need to settle on what it means, in what priority order. Is it common name in recent English mainstream sources? Subject preference? Common name across all English sources ever? Common name in specialist sources that are less than 10 years old, except as overridden by subject preference? Most recognizable name world-wide? Or what?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:JTITLE: use Eastern format for Historical names, Western format for Modern names. Hikaru Utada is clearly a modern name. Same issue with Kumi Koda. Yes, their albums style their names in Eastern format, but reliable sources in English and when referring to their English-produced albums, they use Western format. Let's not retread over this. (discussion archive at Talk:Kumi_Koda#Requested move 2013)AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, got it wrong then, thought SMcC was complaining it was in last-name-first format. Would
In this Japanese name, the surname is Utada.
be correct then? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Utada and Koda are the family names. Modern names is debatable for the Edo and Meiji period as with Tanaka Chigaku (1861–1939), but it definitely applies to post-World War II people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Tx. Back to my original comment: If SMcC (or anyone else) is not happy with it they can take it up "via WP:RM or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles" – nothing here to be settled at policy level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in category names with respect to television networks

Normally I would post this question at WT:NCCAT, but that talk page doesn't get much activity, so...I have noticed that there is Category:TLC (TV network) programs, but then there is also Category:Lifetime (TV network) shows. Which one should it be? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that we always disambiguate with "(TV series)", both appear to need renaming.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So do you think all categories like this should end in "series" then? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Consistency is good... but over-consistency sometimes causes problems. Using "series" will probably make sense in most cases... but not if the specific category includes articles about special shows/programs that are not part of a "series". Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you misread the intent the question just a touch. The delta between the two is not in the parentheses but in the phrase after the parentheses e.g. "programs" vice "shows". --Izno (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I think SMC was asking whether a third option - Category:Lifetime (TV network) series and Category:TLC (TV network) series (etc) would resolve the issue? Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't per your comment, I think. :) --Izno (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Using a . to distinguish an article

Discussion at Talk:Gangsta. and similar has recently often been citing the misleading advice given at WP:SMALLDETAILS: @Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours." ... but this advice is patently not what en.wp does. Generally small details like . ! or an umlaut are usually not considered recognizable or distinctive because they aren't used consistently in WP:RS, --- such as Shakira (album) and Janet (album), while Airplane and Airplane! are giant visible exceptions in the same way that Friends and Windows are giant visible exceptions to our plurals titling practice. I know that there are a couple of shortest-title-at-all-cost activists on this page who are dead set against titles being recognizable. But I hope most of the editors here have enough common sense to know that a dot is not a good way of disambiguating Gangsta from Gangsta other topics. As other . examples have shown. Can we please introduce examples of majority cases into WP:SMALLDETAILS ahead of the minority famous exceptions? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to include counter-examples, although it's not a majority-minority issue. With small details, as with many other titling questions, there is no way to generalize. Sometimes an exclamation point is sufficient to distinguish one title from another, sometimes not. Whether it is is something we decide article by article. Maybe we could take a couple examples, with a sentence along the lines of "Sometimes, a small detail is not enough to distinguish two titles. In that case, parenthetic or other disambiguation is preferred. Ex. [[Sample (example)]], not [[Sample.]]. If the version with the small difference is a unique title, it should redirect to the article in question; if it is not unique, it may redirect to a disambiguation page." Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
There's also an issue that for some of these ! and . articles there just are no English sources because the ! or . is from Japanese. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on readers' technical issues, a terminal period is always not good enough to disambiguate from the matching title without the terminal period because many applications ignore, or remove, terminal periods, which is as they should do because use in text sometimes adds terminal periods. Also, the visual difference is too small. Similarly, terminal commas, colons, semicolons and a bad idea. Question marks (?) and hashes (#) have another technical problem, meaning that if they can't be avoided, the matching title without the question mark should redirect. I think if these occur mid-title, a workaround is required. Underscores in place of spaces similarly are not good enough. The explanation mark, and quotations, are best avoided, but are OK if there is a good reason for them. And then there are genuine ambiguities, such as commonly argued concerning plurals.
I think the criteria for SMALLDETAILS needs to be (1) the detail is not so small that readers won't overlook that detail; and (2) browsers and other applications won't interpret or interfere with the url due to unusual title characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Underscores and spaces are interpreted the same way, so you cannot have titles that differ only by spaces being replaced by underscores. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

As said before, the problems with WP:SMALLDETAILS result from when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) was folded into the WP:AT policy some years ago. The "summary" of that guideline, as kept in WP:AT, largely missed the point, at least it missed the needed nuance. So I've unfolded Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (again), and added a boilerplate to that guidance in the SMALLDETAILS section. If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe's statement above about the detailed being overlooked. I agree that at full stop at the end of a title is not enough to distinguish it, and as most people who search for a subject from outside Wikipedia will use search engines, it is unlikely that a search engine will make such a distinction. One of the reasons for titles is to place articles close to the top of a search and AFAICT a Google search does make a distinction between "Aeroplane" and "Aeroplane!". A Google search of ["Aeroplane!" film] returns the Wikipedia article as number two in the list. A search of ["Aeroplane" film] does not (instead it returns Hawaizaada). So I think this needs further discussion. Does the distinction of "Aeroplane" "Aeroplane!" meet "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
-- PBS (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that very minor and easily overlooked or omitted elements like a dot/period shouldn't be considered sufficient to make otherwise identical titles consistently distinguishable. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I do run some tests from time to time on mainspace titles that vary only by a terminal full-stop. I could extend this and produce a report. But it's pretty rare that they are not all pointing to the same article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC).
  • WP:SMALLDETAILS needs to state that "and" vs "&" is a non-distinguishing small detail. Anyone object? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose – micromanagement, not the level of detail needed on a policy page. Can you give an example of where this has lead to issues? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call & a too-small detail at the level of common terminal punctuation. I agree that Ps & Qs and Ps and Qs are not sufficiently different, but that it is because "&" and "and" are similes used interchangeably, it is not a matter for WP:SMALLDETAILS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Support As any editor that spends significant time at WP:RM will realise that this squarely covers a very common and time wasting type of issue. The RM discussions, as far as I can remember, always go one way and yet other editors regularly create infringing articles so as to waste yet more editor time.
In ictu oculi would it be acceptable to you for WP:SMALLDETAILS to say something such as: "and" vs "&" is not typically considered to be a non-distinguishing small detail? While I agree with the generalities of the "rule" I can imagine that there may be exceptions. GregKaye 08:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Gangsta. is to me not an example for WP:SMALLDETAILS. The dot is too small for SMALLDETAILS, but it doesn't apply becuase there is no Wikipedia article Gansta. That title is in fact a disambiguation page that very clearly points to "Gangsta., a Japanese manga and anime series" amongst the many other similar things. Disambiguation pages are fanatasitic things for anyone not part of the dominant group. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • SMALLCAPS applies whether it regards a disambiguation page or not, see The World Is Yours, example included in the policy. I don't even quite understand the rationale ("Disambiguation pages are fanatasitic things for anyone not part of the dominant group") why you think it would be better to change the policy on this point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You seem slightly aggressive, I don't know why. I think I even generally agree with your posts?
It is my opinion that the lower limit of how small a difference is admitable as a SMALLDETAILS is not so important of the difference in between an article and a disambiguation page. I am not aware that this implies any change to policy.
Disambiguation things are fantastic for assisting with navigation to unusual things, and going to a disambiguation because of a misread of a small detail is not a concern of much consequence, as the disambiguation is a lite page that includes a clear and simple link to the page that you did want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, still can't parse the distinction you're trying to make. Also, why SMALLDETAILS wouldn't apply in your opinion in the case of Gangsta., while it meets what is described in the policy – The World Is Yours/The Wörld Is Yours (the example in the policy) and Gangsta/Gangsta. appear as perfectly comparable pairs imho?--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
SMALLDETAILS only applies to articles. Disambiguation pages are not articles. The World Is Yours is not an article. If someone wanting The Wörld Is Yours (an article on an album) goes to The World Is Yours (a disambiguation page) instead, they have not gone to the wrong article. Probably, it is easier for many to go via the DAB page than to enter the umlauted letter. "Is" should not be capitalized, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_13#Capitalization_of_Copula_.28linguistics.29. Note how often the is is not capitalized in sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yet the "...The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours..." is an example in the policy. Even if that example only applies to the The Wörld Is Yours part of the example then still Gangsta. is a similar example. Still don't understand the confusion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Francis, Yes, "The World is Yours" is not a good example. They are not two articles differing by only a small difference. I think that example should be removed.
Sorry, I really haven't given enough care to this. As a deliberate point, I refuse to be excessively drawn on matters I do not think are very important for the encyclopedia, and I have decided that these matters include albums and manga. The debate here involves both!
I agree with the consensus that I sense here, that a terminal period is too small, and should be excluded as a SMALLDETAIL.
I agree I think with you that too much, too-specific, guideline material has crept into this policy.
I note that as Rich Farmbrough says, in almost all cases, where there is an article foo., foo redirects to foo., d as a consequence this (Using a . to distinguish an article) is a non-issue. It would be intersting to see a list of exceptions. Where foo is a disambiguation page, I thnk the exception is a non-issue.
The principle I am adhering to is: Readers should not be unexpectedly taken to the wrong article, but there is little problem with being taken to a disambiguation page if there is ambiguity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Still opposing your way of formulating it "...that (whatever) is too small, and should be excluded as a SMALLDETAIL..." Whatever the guidance and how it is written, its scope is small details. As said, writing guidance about small differences, except when the differences are small is not a sensible approach, it's just meaningless confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Francis, actually I agree with you, I was not focused on how to formulate it. Actually, I think this policy page is the worst presented of all policy pages, and if given free reign on fixing it, I wouldn't know where to start. It is ill-structured, is repetitive, contains circular definitions, and has very confusing overlap with a similarly badly presented guideline, Wikipedia:Disambiguation. It contains many nuanced concepts, and feels no need to justify or explain. The examples don't help. As a rule of thumb, if examples are needed, it is because the explanations fail. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is my take on this... I tend to agree that dots (periods, whatever you want to call them) are not the best form of disambiguation - I think they are too small a detail to properly distinguish one article title from another (unlike other characters, they are very hard to see... and almost impossible to see on mobile devices)... yes SMALLDETAILS does allow them ... and I think they should continue to be allowed (because I always want to keep my options open... there may well be one or two cases where using such a dot is our only real choice, and disallowing them would cause more problems than it would solve). However, what is "allowed" is not the same as what is "best". In the specific case of Gangsta. vs Gangsta (mangia), I am inclined to favor parenthetical disambiguation... because I simply think using a parenthetical is better than using what I think is an (overly) small detail. Both are "allowed"... but one is better than the other in my editorial judgement. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think the policy needs to be updated to allow Gangsta (manga), or do you think it is allowed by the current SMALLDETAILS policy? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No... Gansta (manga) is already "allowed" under the parenthetical disambiguation section of the policy. It has nothing to do with SMALLDETAILS, so I would not mention it there. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As one of the people most involved with WP:SMALLDETAILS... honestly, yes, I think a period is so easy to miss, people could get confused. That does lead to the somewhat nonsensical situation where Gangsta. would of course redirect to Gangsta. (manga), which makes no sense, either. I would support a simple exception to WP:SMALLDETAILS that excludes periods from the policy simply because they're too small to see, but I would strongly oppose the general application of that exception to other differentiators, like in Airplane!. Red Slash 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy is, or should be, about what to do when the typographical differences are hard to distinguish, in the case the expressions have a different meaning. Having a policy that says something about differences that are hard to distinguish, except in the case when they are hard to distinghuish amounts to WP:RULECRUFT. Why then would we have the policy in the first place? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

One thing I want to point out is that 'could' does not necessarily mean 'should'. Small details can be used to disambiguate article titles, but it does not mean that it is encouraged. I think it would be better to explicitly state whether using small details for natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation or other forms of disambiguation that involves using longer titles. This alone would solve many problems. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Possible restoration of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)

RESOLVED
(NAC) while involved I don't think there is an objection to me closing this now as "undo restoration of the former subsidiary guideline": all seem to be in agreement, and the issue of the policy not having retained enough of the guideline at the time when it was decided to fold it into the policy has been resolved (see below #First paragraph). Consequently, I'll reinstate the redirect at the "... (precision)" page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline be restored or remain the redirect it has been for most of the time since 30 October 2009? most recently restored version -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

History of the redirect and restoration

  • 14:27, 30 October 2009‎ Kotniski (redirecting to merged guideline where all this is covered, per talk)
  • 22:00, 9 November 2009‎ Francis Schonken (there was no consensus for this)
  • 08:20, 10 November 2009‎ Kotniski (undo - consensus was certainly reached on this (see multiple naming convention talk archives))
  • 23:53, 16 February 2012‎ Jc37 (restore for illustrative purposes)
  • 02:40, 13 April 2012‎ Born2cycle (Restore as redirect per consensus reached years ago about avoiding duplicate guidelines - see edit summaries in history)
  • 10:36, 1 July 2014‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 487105621 by Born2cycle (talk) apparently new discussions emerged where this may be useful, see WT:NC#What should decide titles? initiated by Born2cycle)
  • 19:15, 1 July 2014‎ PBS (Rv to last version by B2C. Reverting a change that is two years old without a new talk page consensus is not appropriate. Gain a consensus at talk WP:AT before making such a change)
  • 08:21, 21 July 2015‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 615193695 by PBS (talk) per discussion at WT:AT#Using a . to distinguish an article)
  • 09:05, 21 July 2015‎ PBS (Undid revision 672396442 by Francis Schonken (talk) I have started an RfC on WP:AT see RfC: Possible restoration of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)

--PBS (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose separate guideline - we do sometimes need separate topic related "naming conventions" - as some topics have unique factors that impact how we balance the five basic criteria ((Recognizability, Naturalness, Conciseness, Precision and Consistency) to find the best title for subjects within that topic area. However, Precision isn't a topic related issue... It is one of the five basic criteria we strive for in every title. As such, it should be covered in the AT policy itself. Indeed, creating a separate guideline would be a huge mistake... as the inevitable instruction creep takes hold, having a separate guideline will inevitably lead to having conflicting instructions (with the policy saying "do X" and the guideline saying "do Y".)
So... if there is a question about how best to achieve Precision, it needs to be hashed out here and once we reach a consensus, the policy can then be amended accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I agree with Bluboar. It makes sense to integrate guidelines, not to fragment them. I took a look at the precision page and thought it needed a bit of copy-editing; some of the examples look suboptimal, too. Tony (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Rather than wait for the outcome of the RfC ,after my revert of his edit SF, has reverted my revert. Consequently the text you are looking at is the result of this revert which is a fragrant breach of WP:BRD and based on text that is five years old. -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose separate guideline - per Blueboar. Having the same guideline presented in two places has no value that I can see, certainly not in this case, and is asking for trouble. --В²C ☎ 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose separate guideline (proposer) - done without it for 5 years, it does not add anything but the trouble of trying to keep the two in harmony. -- PBS (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose separation per B2C and friends Red Slash 20:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that the RM at Talk:Gangsta. appears to not be achieving any kind of consensus; to the contrary. So even a title that differs from others by the smallest possible detail (a period) is deemed acceptable by the community; policy should reflect that. --В²C ☎ 02:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have not so boldly added [see current discussion] after "may" in the guideline because it is still under discussion. Gangsta. is having a local consensus opposition by some manga editors, seriously, that shouldn't shape this discussion here. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Before I support or oppose (I'm on the fence due to past vs present guideline precedence), I'm wondering what the hubbub is about. We have innumerable essays. And we have many many guidelines which are essentially better explanatory pages of a section of a policy. WP:PRECISION was its own page a long time. And the merging of this and other pages apparently ended up being an arbcom case where sanctions were added. So basically, my question is this: why is this important? This "feels" like a POV is being pushed here. What's the issue? Are we really debating whether it's better to have a single but lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages? I'm asking just so it's clear. - jc37 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "what the hubbub is about", the hubbub is about the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline never being correctly transferred to the WP:AT policy page (when it was decided in a talk page discussion with very few participants it would be merged in). The differences are minor, and in most cases (the ones that can be handled according to the Airplane/Airplane! example) there is no difference. The ones that are better treated according to the Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem/Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem principle (like the one this section began about) appear every now and then, and that's when the current policy page is failing to give helpful guidance. So we could continue to "re-invent" guidance that was invented some ten years ago, and then continue to find "no consensus" to implement it, or, alternatively, and that's what I propose, admit that the helpful existing guidance was not successfully transferred at the time of the merger, and deal with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. "Are we really debating whether it's better to have a single but lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages?" – I'm not. Not even interested in that discussion, as I said above: "If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT." So I'll cling to the guideline only inasmuch as WP:SMALLDETAILS continues to be ineffective for part of the issues that should be covered by it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes... the question of whether it is better to cover precision along side the other criteria, in a single but lengthy policy page... or better to have many but shorter guideline pages for each criteria is exactly what we need to discuss. Once that is settled, then we can work on what to say at whatever page discusses it. Personally, I would prefer to have it all covered in one place.
Actually... I think it is time that we review the basic structure of this policy. I have long thought that a policy with five listed criteria should be structured around those criteria... ie there would be a fairly substantial section for each of five criteria. A section on Recognizability, a section on Naturalness, a section on Precision, etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be interested in exploring that. Would you be willing to do an outline or somesuch somewhere? - jc37 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
See fate of the last restructure proposal involving this section at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Combined proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jc37, if the issue here was about "lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages", I would agree with Blueboar that it's better to have everything on one page.

But I agree with Francis Schonken that it's not about that. It is about "lengthy policy page PLUS one (redundant and possibly conflicting) shorter guideline page", and I definitely oppose that, and Francis explains why everyone should. Unless I'm misunderstanding, Francis is saying he disagrees with what this page says, agrees with what the separate page says, can't get consensus to include that in this page, so wants to get it by restoring the separate guideline. Now, I don't understand or remember what exactly it is that Francis thinks is so important on that page that should be in policy (I don't know what the "the Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem/Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem principle" is, much less what current policy doesn't say about that but should), but I definitely think the way to get it (or anything else about the criteria), is through consensus building on this talk page, and eventually incorporating it on this policy page. Simply reverting a longstanding redirect back to the page that has what someone likes strikes me as an end-run around the consensus-building process. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


A couple things. First, there are a LOT of naming conventions/article title pages. This is merely one. That said, this is a rather important one, and I could see why we would want it merged to a central page. Now if there is more to the policy than what is wanted on that main page, then, per summary style, we spit the excess to a separate page. And on the converse, if the entirety of the page should be merged to the central page, that can be done too. That's all merely a matter of format.

But I get the impression when I read the above that there is a question of content of the policy.

So what's the over-riding concern? - jc37 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "over-riding concern": "If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT." as I said in my first contribution in this section, and have already re-quoted when you asked a similar question above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jc37 (1) this is a policy page, the naming conventions are guidelines. (2) "we would want it merged" wrong tense it was merged 5 years ago and there is no consensus to restore it. (3) many of the naming conventions were originally written as work around when "common name" meant common name through all web pages including reliable sources. As a work around WikiProjects introduced rules that 95% of the time produced results similar to that in reliable sources (eg "Mary I of England", rather than "Bloody Mary"). When "common name in reliable sources" was introduced into this policy page, most of those naming conventions became redundant, but (providing the naming convention in question does not contradict this policy), getting projects to drop their comfort blankets is more trouble than it is worth. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Which seem secondary concerns (the third is even a straw man regarding this issue) when the over-riding concern is to have the guidance that most effectively helps editors with their practical questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't care whether it's been a redirect for 5 years. As you note, most editors act BOLDly and likely never even look here. Looking at pages and seeing them as unchangeable aedifices is not what we do here. Entrenchment is counter productive.
That aside, from reading above, apparently none of us here care if this page is returned to being a redirect except, that it's been stated that apparently the merging was incompletely done in the past. If so, using this page as "raw material", since, at some point the text on this policy page had consensus, and since, from my understanding the issue with the merging was not the text here, but simply wanting it all on one page (as also noted above) - So what text needs to be added to AT from here to complete the merge, or at least to reflect common practice and/or prior consensus? - jc37 09:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The text here is the problem: even what it exactly tries to convey is unclear (e.g. the whole second paragraph with the JESUS example is fuzzy, what really is the intention of this prose?) – as such the prose of the section is not policy-level material.
As for the processable part of the guidance prose:
  • The guideline frames this as an ambiguity issue to be resolved by the "appropriate disambiguation technique", and then lists three with some indications and examples when to use which.
  • The policy page steps over the ambiguity concept and goes straight to "strongly advising" two disambiguation techniques, and (after an aside) envelopes the third in so much fuzz it is unclear what is actually meant. Which is a kind of signal to apply the first two almost exclusively, and for the third something like "don't go there". Which prevents the most appropriate disambiguation technique to be applied in certain cases, and people coming here (again) asking whether they can't do it differently, while employing whatever is the most appropriate disambiguation technique should already have covered that.
The fact that, in this dicussion, it has been repeatedly asked what the difference is between both guidances illustrates that at least one is not clear at face value, like a policy should be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Francis, this is out of place in this section. If you have suggestions on how to improve the description of precision on this policy page, please start a separate section where you explain the problem that you see and what you propose to fix it. Then let's see if that has consensus support. Perhaps you've tried and were unable to develop consensus support for your view? Then undoing the redirect to resurrect the old separate guideline so you can express your apparently contra-consensus view of precision is not the way to go - that is not a good argument for supporting the revert of that redirect. If proposals to reword the policy continue to fail, what you can do is copy/paste the content of that old guideline as a basis for a new essay. I suggest the following title for your new essay: WP:Precision, precisely. --В²C ☎ 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't tell your fellow-wikipedians what they can and cannot answer to an honest question.
This RfC is someone's answer to my first comment in the #Using a . to distinguish an article section. That comment of mine contains my rationale for unfolding the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline. So, no, this shouldn't have started in a new section while it breaks up the topic being discussed (and obfuscates I gave a clear rationale). I do such rearrangements of sections into subsections for topics that should stay together upon future archiving (and coherence of current discussion) regularly, and it has thus far always been appreciated.
So I see no reason to do differently here.
On the content of the matter: at the Gangsta. WP:RM someone said "add parenthical disambiguator" was out of order to sort out a WP:SMALLDETAILS issue, which is not what the policy says (see second paragraph of that policy section). Even the editor who brought it to this talk page didn't realise that. The guideline has a better way of explaining it as one of the alternatives, and when to use that particular one, because we didn't have such problems before its folding.
When a few years ago there was a go to fold the guideline into the policy page there never was agreement to fold a tendentious rewrite of the guideline into the policy page. I'm not impressed this wasn't remarked before, because it doesn't occur all that often, but I don't think we should have the same discussion on this talk page every time it happens.
I don't know whether that "third option" is the best way to address the Gangsta. SMALLDETAILS issue (not familiar with the topic area), but people shouldn't be saying it is "against the rules" in the RM discussion. It isn't, but it is difficult to find in the unorganized way the policy section is written currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What it is exactly that is important to capture from the guideline

Maybe there is consensus for what you're trying to say. I have no idea, because I can't understand what your point is. Can you clearly explain what you think the guideline says, exactly, that is important to capture, and is currently not captured in policy? --В²C ☎ 16:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
At Talk:Gangsta. moving Gangsta. to Gangsta (manga) is pictured as an "illegitimate" solution while the policy allows it (example in policy: JESUS (album), imaginary example), but nobody appears to be able to find where the policy allows it. The guideline also allows it (Passio (Pärt), IRL example), but it is clearer from the guideline that this is not an arcane solution, it's solving a disambiguation problem with the same do's and don'ts that apply to the more usual disambiguation issues. Then someone comes here, proposing a policy rewrite; then I think: we solved this years ago,... etc. So rewrite the policy (using less words!) in a way that makes this clear. (as said, I don't know whether this third solution is the way to go for Gangsta., my only concern is that people don't picture it as an illegitimate solution, ending up, once every few months, on this page) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh. There is no consensus for that view, not in that specific example, nor in general. For very good reasons, I might add. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
? Then you're saying there's no consensus on the policy (WP:AT) that allows it (WP:SMALLDETAILS, second paragraph)? Then, if there's no consensus that that paragraph is policy how come it is in the policy? Only because some people don't understand it and ask others to explain them what it means over and over again? Well, that's not how it should work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
And the guideline had and still has consensus, it was never "demoted", the only agreement there was at the time of merging was that it should be summarized in the policy, and if it didn't happen then, it's about time don't you think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of this appears as a WP:IDONTLIKE the policy, the part that happens to be in WP:SMALLDETAILS, second paragraph, so lets keep it as obscure and hidden away as possible, in which case a clear guideline on the same would be preferable, of course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
What? The second paragraph in WP:SMALLDETAILS is explicitly referring to articles that are "far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other", like JESUS and a hypothetical album named JESUS. What does that have to do with Gangsta.? Is there a use of "Gangsta" that is "far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than [the Japanese manga and anime series]"? Apparently not, at least not according to consensus, since Gangsta is a dab page. That's what policy says, and that's what has consensus support. What exactly do you see in that second paragraph that applies to Gangsta., and why? --В²C ☎ 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
"far more likely to be searched for" might apply (don't know whether it does, I'm not that familiar with the topic area). Anyhow, not an arcane solution, not something that would make people come running here every time it is proposed.
The problem with the policy is that it is overly rigid, i.e. too rigid for a policy page. When there are multiple meanings that combined are "far more likely to be searched for" (like on a disambig page), there's no reason why the principle wouldn't be applicable, subject to consensus as explained in the latter half of the paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If there was a use for "Gangsta" that was "far more likely to be searched for", then it would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by definition. If we had consensus for that, then the article for that use would be at Gangsta. But that's not the case. Therefore we must assume that none of the uses meet the "far more likely to be searched for" criteria (at the very least, the burden is on anyone who disagrees to prove otherwise).

I don't know what you are referring to when you say, "not an arcane solution". What is not an arcane solution? That sentence is missing a subject and I, for one, cannot glean from the context to what you are referring.

As to the argument that in a situation where multiple meanings are "far more likely to be searched for" that the principle should apply, that makes no sense. That's always the case when there are multiple meanings. It would mean even Oliver! (and countless titles like it), because of all the other uses listed at Oliver and Oliver (surname), could not be a title. The de facto naming convention, manifested in how articles like Oliver! are actually titled, demonstrates that such an interpretation is contrary to consensus. --В²C ☎ 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are looking for the ultimate policy statement that "allows" a title (any title)... it is this: ...editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. This statement should probably be moved up to the top of the page, as it is what lies behind the rest of the Policy... Article titles are chosen by consensus (a consensus that should be based on discussing issues like Recognizability, Precision, Naturalness, etc.). As long as there is a consensus for it... any title is allowed. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Which doesn't help on the practical & helpful guidance part for the issue being discussed here: the "considerations" to be taken into account still need to be on the page, practical and helpful, for SMALLDETAILS issues that arise every once and awhile (and if they don't arise often enough to burden a long page with, then they would be better on a separate guidance page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, lets approach it another way... would you explain what exactly you think is "missing" from the SMALLDETAILS sub-section of the policy? Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Another way? That's what I asked, just above: Can you clearly explain what you think the guideline says, exactly, that is important to capture, and is currently not captured in policy? Good luck trying to understand the answer. --В²C ☎ 00:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
You understood it perfectly well, as can be seen from your diligent answer, so don't imply your fellow-editors are less able to capture what has been said than you are. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop taking pot shots at each other. It's not conductive to resolving the issue. Francis, obviously there is something that was said in the old guideline that you think is missing from the current policy section. I don't (and won't) speak for other editors... all I can say is that I (personally) don't understand what that something is. I am asking you to be more specific so I can better understand what is concerning you and why. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
B2C is correct, your question is answered above after where B2C asked "Can you clearly explain what you think the guideline says, exactly, that is important to capture, and is currently not captured in policy?" I've placed a subsection title above the comment with that question for easy reference: #What it is exactly that is important to capture from the guideline. Hope you can find the answer now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I am still not sure I understand what the issue is... so correct me where if I have it wrong... Is your concern that SMALLDETAILS does not address Gangsta (manga)? If so, then my reaction is: of course SMALLDETAILS doesn't address it... Gangsta (manga) has nothing to do with using a SMALLDETAIL to disambiguate. It is an example of a different form of disambiguation entirely - ie using Parenthetical disambiguation. - and is discussed ("allowed") in its own separate sub-section. Are you saying that SMALLDETAILS should discuss it? Why? Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I think he's kind of saying SMALLDETAILS should be clear that the period in Gangsta. is too small a detail to suffice as disambiguation, and so a move to some other form of disambiguation (perhaps parenthetic) is justified. But he's also saying that since SMALLDETAILS is not saying that, that we should resurrect the old guideline page which he believes does say that. I think. But even if I understand that correctly, why he thinks this is important is certainly not clear to me. When I drilled down on what he meant, he ended up essentially reversing primary topic. Instead if there is one topic that is "more likely to be searched than any other", he wants to apply, "if there are multiple topics more likely to be searched than any other..." Frankly, I still don't get it. And I suspect his apparent inability to articulate clearly about this suggests he doesn't either. --В²C ☎ 16:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Never said we should resurrect the guideline. It's about the guidance not the page on which it is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec) SMALLDETAILS should discuss Gangsta/Gangsta., and that to address the ambiguity that results from it a viable path is using a disambiguation technique, i.e. parenthical disambiguation Gangsta. (manga), or parenthical disambiguation of a modified/simplified form, e.g. Gangsta (manga) (whatever most conforms to WP:CRITERIA), and the policy (or applicable guideline) should explain this in such a (comprehensible) way that people don't come running to this policy talk page every time something in this vein needs addressing.
Accidently I solved exactly the same issue not so long ago, and indeed because I had the simpler folded guideline in mind, and not the policy text, this went of course as swiftly as can be: Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem has a SMALLDETAILS difference with Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem (the second being the Gangsta.-like content page, the first being a redirect to a Gangsta-like disambiguation page): then a first possibility would have been to add the WP:NCM-recommended disambiguator (in this case: "(Pärt)") to the title of the page, thus: Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem (Pärt), but as it happens the topic is also known as simply "Passio" (which also is an ambiguous term), so I decided to do this – as a solution to the SMALLDETAILS problem. This is what the policy (or if it is too detailed for a policy page: the guideline, even an essay would do) should give guidance on, instead of the complicated cruft that is currently in that section of the policy, so that people don't come running here every time something like this occurs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
OK... So... can you be more specific as to what should be added to the policy to resolve the issue? I'm not necessarily expecting a formal proposal of language... but at least give us an initial outline of the changes/additions you think would help to clarify the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Good question:

  1. Current policy (sort of artificially) limits to "articles", while the SMALLDETAILS issue arises for "expressions": PINK and P!NK have the SMALLDETAILS characteristic, while both are redirects (to different pages). "Resolving" the SMALLDETAILS issue may include "renaming", turning one or both of the expressions into redirects (to articles or to disambiguation pages, depending on what best resolves the ambiguity), e.g. for PINK/P!NK the inherent SMALLDETAILS issue has been addressed by redirecting the first to a disambiguation page and the second to Pink (singer). So the first thing is to make it about "expressions" that are meaningful links in Wikipedia and not exclusively about "articles".
  2. Secondly, the "ambiguity" analogy can reduce the current RULECRUFT in the policy: the policy considers a few cases, very detailed, then adds at least one imaginary example to explain... and then when people come to the policy the policy is written so rigid that there's little practical help to be found. None of this is necessary: explain that SMALLDETAILS issues are about ambiguities: in Wikipedia ambiguities are resolved by the techniques explained in WP:D. No need to rehash that guideline in its entirity in the SMALLDETAILS section. Basicly refer to the guidance that will usually be more familiar to editors.
  3. Then, highlight three disambiguation techniques used in this context:
    1. WP:HATNOTES – to be used nearly always (on article pages) touched by a SMALLDETAILS issue (the page where Cañon redirects to is the only exception I know)
    2. Create disambiguation pages, like the one Streets of London and Streets Of London redirect to.
    3. Rename, for which the PINK/P!NK example can be used or the Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem/Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem example.
  4. When it is not obvious which of these techniques are most appropriate, defer to consensus (without excluding any of the usual disambiguation techniques), instead of trying to regulate it with rulecruft.

Always keep in mind that the WP:AT policy is about article titles (not about explaining disambiguation techniques, for which there is a separate guideline), so technically, in fact, the third option described above (the renaming) is the only one that really belongs in the WP:AT policy, what is said about the other disambiguation techniques should be kept short. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps... I am not sure if I agree with everything you suggest, but I do agree with a lot of it. And your goal of reducing RULECRUFT and INSTRUCTION CREEP is something I can get fully behind. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Resuscitating a guideline that has been a redirect for six years (which is what this RfC is about) is not a way to reduce RULECRUFT and INSTRUCTION CREEP. -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
True... but fixing the section of WP:AT that it was redirected to might be. We can agree that resuscitation was not the best way to fix the problem... but we still need to address the underlying concern that prompted it. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's begin with replacing the convoluted second paragraph, depending on a hypothetical example...

This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other. For instance, an album entitled JESUS would probably have its article located at JESUS (album), with JESUS continuing to be a redirect to Jesus. If the album or other possible uses were deemed by editors to be reasonably likely search results for "JESUS", consensus among editors would determine whether or not JESUS would be the location for the album article, a redirect to Jesus, a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the existing disambiguation page Jesus (disambiguation).

... by something more practical & tangible:

When this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the section currently ends with:

... Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases.

I can't think of a single example for that: does it still have any use? Would support removing that from the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's why DIFFCAPS is the way it is

To Francis Schonken and to all of you:

WP:DIFFCAPS has several different parts that each reflect different move discussions that ended in consensuses. Obviously consensus can change, but until it does, I would assert that this policy should not see a significant change.

  1. Discussions such as those at MAVEN have proved specifically that capitalization counts for distinguishing titles. (This is the only part of WP:DIFFCAPS I did not write or codify, if I recall correctly, although I did pick MAVEN as an example for policy.)
  2. Talk:The_Wörld_Is_Yours showed that diacritics can distinguish titles, too. There is no clear-cut discussion that I remember leading to punctuation being a valid distinguisher, but neither Oklahoma! nor Airplane! have ever had a move seriously suggested.
  3. Topics listed at the dab page Friendly Fire, however, were determined not worth distinguishing from the primary all-lower-case topic friendly fire. Please, if you read nothing else, please read this one. That second paragraph you dislike--that paragraph exists to describe the situation found at the Friendly Fire dab page. Any time you have a strong local-consensus win against policy when the only reason to oppose that consensus was only because it went against policy (and not because of some actual legitimate reason), the policy should be updated. And so it was.
  4. Finally, the transliteration section came after a couple of discussions, primarily Talk:Auto-da-Fé_(novel). (See also Auto-da-fé.

I hope this better explains why DIFFCAPS is the way it is. This does not mean that it cannot or should not be changed. But since you wanted to know what was going on, I thought I'd explain. Red Slash 03:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, it explains why the SMALLDETAILS policy section got thoroughly messed up. Jumping at one example at a time, rigidly explaining only that example, so that the applicability for future instances is near to zero, leading to incoherence, and thoroughly impractical guidance...
Example: the part about translation/transliteration (supposedly covering the Auto-da-Fé (novel) example) was written so narrowly that it couldn't be used for the quite similar Passio (Pärt) renaming, while in that case no "translation" nor "transliteration" was involved (expressions remained untranslated and untransliterated in their original form). And then the vagueness: "Special care should be taken ..." – what does that mean? Renaming isn't even mentioned as an option of "taking special care", while, with retrospect when the example is now explicited, that was what was intended.
Anyway, adding a forking SMALLDETAILS ruling in the Trademarks section (see below #Trademarks) is out of the question imho, it further messes up the coherence of the policy-level guidance (depends on which section you're looking at to get a different guidance, yeah, sure, way to go!)
Policy should give a thought framework of how to approach issues when they turn up (which will be a bit different every time they do, so going into the nitty-gritty of individual examples is really no policy-level business). Examples illustrate, making clear what detailed explanations couldn't make half as clear. The overarching principles are clear, and should be explained simply and clearly (hatnotes, dab pages, occasionally renaming), with a few examples to illustrate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can take a look-see at the "special care" thing, since that seems to be confusing. This policy has been supported and used for a relatively long time, and without real problems; there's a few people like B2C who think any distinction should be enough (and would support Janet (album) to Janet.), there's a few people (like Iio) that think no small detail can provide distinction (and would support The Wörld Is Yours to The Wörld Is Yours (tour)), and there's a few of us in the middle who tend to decide on the individual case in question. This is the same situation that there was before my edits, but now it's easier for a new editor to understand what everyone is talking about. Red Slash 16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This is of course window-dressing without any real progress w.r.t. the issues that were raised.
No, the section is problematic, or haven't you been reading any of the discussion here or at Talk:Gangsta.?
And, also, no, this is not the situation "before your edits" ([5])
And also, no, your edits weren't the problem (they at least tried to solve a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation). Way above in this discussion I said multiple times what I think is the real problem, the guidance in the subsidiary guideline was not transferred properly when it was decided that that guideline should be folded into the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was civil and kind! Thank you! Actually, the edit you link was not my first edit to WP:DIFFCAPS--as you can see, that redirect already existed as of that edit, and I was the one who wrote that redirect. I remember it pretty well! And no matter what, there will always be contentious move requests on the border of the rules, and if we change the rules, then there will be contentious move requests on those borderlines. Red Slash 21:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems quite irrelevant to the discussion what your "first" edit to the section was.
  • MR's in the field should not systematically end up on this talk page with a request to change the policy (see discussion above). The former guidance, in the separate guideline, didn't have that problem, and could manage contentious RM's without guideline rewrites after every contentious RM. So I don't see, not even remotely, why the fact that contentious RMs on the borderlines of the guidance will always exist has anything to do with the proposed rewrite.
  • Also, the guideline rewrite permits to have less of the contentious RMs, see what I said above about basing the Passio (Pärt) move on the former guideline (unproblematic), while for the SMALLDETAILS policy it would have been a "contentious" move not being covered by any of its detailed & rigid rulings.
  • And again, the window-dressing without mentioning "renaming" as a solution for a translation/transliteration issue all but makes the guidance more helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I like your proposed rewrite further down. I never intended for the policy to be rigid, and if you can rewrite it, I'm all for it. I think we have agreement here, if not pon trademarks. Red Slash 21:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: There is no clear-cut discussion that I remember leading to punctuation being a valid distinguisher, but neither Oklahoma! nor Airplane! have ever had a move seriously suggested. – see Talk:Yahoo!/Archive 1#Requested move, which was well-attended. A later attempt to undo this went nowhere.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: Any time you have a strong local-consensus win against policy when the only reason to oppose that consensus was only because it went against policy (and not because of some actual legitimate reason), the policy should be updated. – If only this were still practical. As WP becomes more and more bureaucratic, this happens less and less, because a) people are more apt to rigidly apply existing policies/guidelines, both as commenters and closers, and b) various policy and guideline pages are increasingly WP:OWNed by particular individuals or tagteams who fight like their lives depended on it to prevent such additions. It's a general problem across the whole project. That said, going back to a totally easygoing model would have its downside: The WP:Specialized-style fallacy would make a raging comeback under such a regime, with vote-stacked polls being declared "local consensuses", and opposition to them on the general-audience-encyclopedia grounds and mainstream RS usage would be wrongly dismissed as "no legitimate reason, but just because it goes against policy". I'm not really sure how we regain a balance, in which exceptions with genuine consensus do get integrated into policy where needed, yet rampant exceptionalism doesn't ensue. In the interim, it's presently extremely difficult to get a legitimate variant worked in, and some would like to see many long-extant particular cases removed from the rules (not just at AT; this applies all over).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with titles that differ only by a very small detail like a period?

Let's say all articles were not at meaningful titles, but at computer generated ones. So the title of the article for Paris was, say, RSD1573 and the article for Paris, Texas the city was RSD1574 and the article for the film Paris, Texas was RSD1575. Now, Paris and Paris, France would redirect to RSD1573, Paris, Texas would redirect to RSD1574 and Paris, Texas (film) would redirect to RSD1575. I submit everything would work fine. That is, users would find the same articles that they find with today's layout, Google would sort the results the same way it does today, etc. The only thing that would differ would be that the title displayed at the article would not be meaningful, but there would be a meaningful name in bold at the start of the article so, practically, that wouldn't be an issue either.

So if everything can work fine if titles are totally meaningless, why, exactly, is it a problem if titles differ by only a small detail, like capitalization or punctuation? Please explain. --В²C ☎ 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

But everything does not work fine if titles are meaningless. Titles are meaningful. They provide information, though differently than the article itself. Thus it is better to have a meaningful title at the top of the article, as opposed to an arbitrary pseudo-random title. I know you are aware of this, but the point is that this seems to be the basis of your question, and it's a faulty basis. Omnedon (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that there is no value in meaningful titles. I'm saying people can get to articles just as effectively with meaningless titles as with meaningful titles (because of redirects). The point is: the value of the meaning of the title is only at the article itself, not in getting there. Since titles that reflect the name of the topic, even if the name is the name of another use, are meaningful, what's wrong with having a title on an article that reflects the name of the topic accurately but differs from another title by only a very small detail? In fact, if it were not for the technical issue created by the fact that we use the title in the url which must be unique, what would be wrong with using the exact same title on multiple articles that share an ambiguous name? For example, if not for the technical issue, why not have Mercury be the title of all of the articles about topics with that name (planet, element, etc.)? --В²C ☎ 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless you get to an article by clicking SPECIAL:RANDOM, you're getting there from some context. Take the article about the planet Mercury for example. Maybe you searched for Mercury and came from the dab page. Well, you know what you clicked. Or maybe you were on another article, reading about planets, that referenced Mercury through a link which you clicked on. Do you really need to be told it's the planet Mercury and not some other use of Mercury when you get there? And if you did get there with SPECIAL:RANDOM, there is a photo of the planet which dominates the title anyway, and of course even without the photo there is the intro sentence. I contend the only significant value of disambiguation is it allows a way to have a unique title when disambiguation is technically necessary in a way that does not diminish the meaningfulness value of the title. If it were not for the technical reasons for disambiguation, having just the name of the topic (like Mercury) would be perfectly and sufficiently meaningful. Don't you agree? Therefore a title like Gangsta., since it accurately reflects the name of the topic, and is unique so no technical issues, should be fine; not problematic or deficient in any way. Right? --В²C ☎ 02:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, recognition (as in WP:RECOGNIZABLE) is one of the key priniciples for how articles are named in Wikipedia. Cutting that out leads to a meaningless discussion in this context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting tied in knots by a Japanese fad

Noting that:

  • much, of not all, of the above discussion on whether a terminal period is a sufficient disambiguator involves things from Japan, and
  • that traditional Japanese does not use the period, and
  • that Japanese_punctuation#Words_containing_full_stops tells us that inclusion of the of English period has turned into a fad,
  • which appears to have Japanese meaning different to the English period, and
  • that use of words spelled with a terminal period makes the running text look silly,

Wikipedia should probably stop respecting the Japanese period in translations to English, both in running text and in titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have said, I am not really a fan of the terminal dot for disambiguation... but... I do have to question whether it is really accurate to describe a practice that has been going on for almost 30 years (since the 1980s) with the dismissive term: "fad". "Fad" implies a rather brief period of popularity that quickly fades. This practice does not look like it is really fading. Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Fad is not my word. If you look to examples of words containing the Japanese full stop, they do not include serious topics. Also I am seeing that these terminal Japanese full stops are not well translated as English full stops, but are closer to the English exclamation mark, and as having effect on pronunciation but not on sentence structure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Appears it is all much simpler:
WP:MOSTM says no to inclusion of a period in a page name, so neither Gangsta. nor Gangsta. (manga) are compliant. Only a variant without period would be acceptable.
This does however not yet solve the problem of having more appropriate guidance in general. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: actually, what it says is "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced ... unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject." (emphasis mine). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
And...? I think I made a comparison where a comparison is due (frequency/usage/... etc.). They should all follow the same guidance whether you emphasise a part of it or not. Where's the significant majority of truly independent reliable sources in the Gangsta. case? Doesn't seem particularily more significant than in the Skate. or Melody. case. So stop fussing and apply the guidance as written. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I'm not "fussing", I'm engaging in sensible debate, which is how issues on Wikipedia are supposed to be resolved. If you would do the same, instead of merely degrading the people who disagree with you, perhaps this could actually be a productive conversation. P.S.: conversely, where are the sources not using the period in the Gangsta. case? Since there are none (or very, very few), I think that constitutes a "significant majority". G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned there, although there is a abundance of reliable sources, none of them a what we'd call quality sources for an encyclopedia. Mostly they are published facts, not secondary sources, and those that do contain commentary are clearly written for fan audiences, certainly not academic writing. There is no cross-comparison of genre or themes. Accordingly, all the sources replicate the product's styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, WikiProject Anime and manga disagrees with you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
There is more to source analysis than "reliable". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It kind of seems like you're looking for any reason to ignore the use of the period in all reliable sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a good reason. Given the disruption of a random, apparently for-decoration, period to readability of English text, it is entirely sensible to point out that all of the sources are closely connected sources that are simply copying the primary source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The period is no more disruptive than a period used in an abbreviation, which no one would bat an eyelid at if they saw it in the middle of a sentence. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Really, I don't see a difference with the degree of significance for the other ones that lost their point per the MoS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's just WP:OTHERSTUFF, and doesn't really bear on this. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, we might have to reexamine the results of those consensuses. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:MOSTM isn't "otherstuff", it's the applicable guideline. Yeah sure, it could be rewritten. Or re-interpreted. Or both. Since there's no consensus either way at the current RM, I'm a proponent of a "less fuss" option, instead of going out on a limb for less obvious cases. Please also consider this: recent culture has less occurrence in more stabilized reliable sources (e.g. google books): in that case, default to "avoid using special characters that are not pronounced", since there is no "significant" number "of reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to begin with (a significant majority, can per plain basic rules of statistics, only be defined if there's a significant group to begin with). There are less than a handful of reliable sources that are independent of the subject mentioned in the Gangsta. article. No significant majority can be derived from so little sources, even if they would all do the same (which they don't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about MOS:TM, I was referring to the other pages you mentioned. Also, "no consensus" translates to "don't move" in RM discussions: even more so in this one since the supporters are split fairly evenly between Gangsta (manga) and Gangsta. (manga). Nor does your arbitrarily defined "majority" matter, since almost all the sources use the period. So no matter if you like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the period be used. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very late to this discussion, but for my two cents worth I am generally against WP:MINORDETAILS, WP:DIFFCAPS etc. and I would favour a move towards a policy or guideline that says we should use disambiguation pages in such cases. Some may regard it as a dumbing down of standards, but the modern trend is towards case insensitivity, not away from it. For practical purposes Jesus, Jesus, and JESUS should be regarded as interchangeable. Similarly V. and V are the same thing. Google searches are always case insensitive (there isn't even a way to make them case sensitive in the advanced options). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Trademarks

I removed this paragraph added to the policy page:

Using specialized spelling, punctuation or capitalization can also be used for natural disambiguation, even if the trademarked spelling is not the most natural or commonly used name.

This example, contained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, contradicts this, so the proposed addition, besides other flaws, is not suitable policy content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll strongly disagree with that. Very, very strong consensuses determined deadmau5 to be the right title, and it obviously is, and the only reason we had any controversy about it was that MOS:TM contradicted WP:COMMONNAME. But finally (finally!), after tons and tons of discussion, we made the common-sense correct decision with a profound majority and moved it back to where it should be: the common name.
This was a seminal moment in article titles on Wikipedia. If you doubt it was a seminal moment, please, read:
  1. the first RM, where people basically just bowed to MOS:TM and it was moved to deadmaus;
  1. a discussion I initiated at MOS:TM's talkpage, which went on forever; and finally,
  1. the next RM, full of people lambasting the prior move and pushing for a reversion;
  1. the overwhelming crush of consensus to deliberately and directly overrule MOS:TM based solely on WP:COMMONNAME.
That is our standing consensus, and that is why I made the edit to explicitly show that here. Our policies exist so that we can show newbies how we do things at Wikipedia, reflecting consensuses developed in the encyclopedia at large as well as here in the WT namespace. Completely as a side issue; no, there is no article at iPod. The article is at IPod. Check it yourself and see. We can display it as iPod, and should! But there is no article at iPod, which is an exception to WP:COMMONNAME made for unavoidable technical reasons. Red Slash 16:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Seminal or whatever "very, very strong" & discussions taking place elsewhere (three of the four you mention on the same single article), etc, consensus needs to be found before anything of the sort can be added to policy. I disagree, with wording etc of your proposals, & your needing several reverts before coming to the talk page to explain yourself is not likely to convince me otherwise.
Note that to all extents and purposes "Deadmau5" is a contentious example, and can, for that reason, not be used on a policy page... whatever your victory boasting over it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"Victory boasting"? Why do you think being mean will help you? Did you notice I actually supported "deadmaus" in the first request? I changed my mind because of the quality of the arguments presented. Red Slash 03:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "victory boasting" is a fair way to describe the situation. Nonetheless, I've reverted Red Slash's edit again. I'm not sure if the consensus supports the idea that the deadmau5 move was sufficiently game-changing to be a prime reason to alter policy about article titles. It might be, but I would like to see more people weigh in to the discussion here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd support removing the Standard English and trademarks section from the policy page entirely (make the shortcut redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules), together with replacing the last paragraph of WP:SMALLDETAILS (only one sentence: "Plural forms may in certain instances also be used to naturally distinguish articles; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)#Primary topic for details.") by:

Further guidance:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The first one is okay, but I don't see how it's clearer than what we currently have. The second is unacceptable; MOS:TM defers to WP:AT, not the other way around. As for Paul Erik, if that wasn't a game-changing move discussion, what is? We went obviously 100% extremely overboard on that to overrule the guideline. The guideline should be either rewritten or have its exceptions more clearly hewn out as a result. How significant of a discussion are you looking for? Red Slash 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I see where you're coming from, but I have a bit of a different perspective on it. That discussion drew a lot of participants, but much of the consensus there seemed to frame "deadmau5" as an example of an exception to the general approach (and that's how the admin who closed the discussion seemed to view it); I don't see a lot of support for a change to how it is explained at WP:AT. For what it's worth, I agree with Francis Schonken that too much emphasis on exceptions is unhelpful; it can be confusing for new editors especially. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In order to avoid redundancy (that may lead to forking of the relevant guidance) I'd replace the end of the first paragraph of the "Standard English and trademarks" section:

(...) ; however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.

by:

(...) . On using minor typographical differences, like a different capitalization, to distinguish article topics see above #When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on that last point. We have too much forked guidance. It needs to be a general principle that every time we mention a rule derived from somewhere else that we cite that page/section, and if possible just replace it with a "see ...". It does lead to rule-forking, and in some cases that in turn has led to years of massive problems, affecting many thousands of articles, editorial resignations, etc. Policy editors at WP have to start writing like a Committee not "writing like a committee" (i.e. like an organized body expected to produce usable output, not like an unfocused gaggle of people squabbling over trivia, or mired in their own narrow interests or those of some wikiproject or the good ol' boys' club or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

To use or not to use final periods (full stops) as disambiguation – move request that may affect WP:AT

Move discussion at Gangsta. on moving it to Gangsta (manga) per precedent at Janet. > Janet (album) and Shakira. > Shakira (album).

Since a quick read of WP:AT does not appear to support the move (which IMO seems common sensical: I can't see how a period makes an intelligible dab), and since there are comments that WP:AT might should be modified to reflect the consensus arrived at the move discussion, I thought editors of WP:AT should either chime in or close the move request. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Section title

I'd propose to change the current section title:

====Using minor details to naturally disambiguate articles====

to:

===When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic===

Rationale: minor details are not in all circumstances a technique to "naturally disambiguate", and this is partly the reason why the current policy guidance is so confusing, leading to such contradictory statements as "WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply while we're talking about a small difference" and the like (see above). The section should provide guidance when a "smalldetails" issue arrises, and not limit the possible solutions to such issues via the section title to "only" natural disambiguation (which is often not the way this is handled, e.g. P!nk being renamed to a page with a parenthical disambiguator). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph

Currently the first paragraph of the section reads:

Titles of distinct articles may differ only in small details. Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so appropriate hatnotes with links to the other article(s) and disambiguation pages are strongly advised.

I'd replace that by something in this vein:

Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, e.g. Red meat vs. Red Meat, or Friendly fire vs. the meanings of Friendly Fire listed at Friendly Fire (disambiguation). The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be intending, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours.

And let the next paragraph start with "However, when..." instead of "When...". The rationale for this proposed update is above in #What it is exactly that is important to capture from the guideline, I think this covers the last points I consider essential to recover from the former guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That I can get behind. Red Slash 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Will wait some time to see whether other editors want to chime in before implementing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Good edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Works for me as well. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording tweak

This sentence is awkward:

  • The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for ...

I propose changing it to:

  • The general approach is that regardless what readers type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for ...

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "regardless" in this sentence may suggest it is "regardless" whether users type in the search infobox or not, while the intention is to talk about entering a search term in the search infobox, so no, not an improvement. I think the current wording garnered enough support to keep it "as is". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Infoboxes are not part of this discussion. There is only one place to type in a search term here so it's not possible to interpret it as referring to something else; it's still talking about entering search terms in the search box; it says "regardless what" not "regardless whether"; and finally, this is not a discussion about whether there was consensus to ever include "whatever", back when.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I always love to see what appears to be a misconception that past consensus can not change or "it was good back then. While this gives a certain protection on article titles (that has enjoyed stability), it does not really help if a proposed edit correction (content) has merit and follows common sense, to use past consensus (especially if not specifically related to said edit) as a reason to squash consideration of a wording change. I would weigh in on the topic but this is a large policy with no clickable link to the area of discussion. Otr500 (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Grouped again with the discussion on the current wording, which gives the link to the policy section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify DIFFPUNCT

We need a statement at DIFFPUNCT that if a title suffices under that section of the policy, it is not to be subjected to redundant disambiguation measures except in the case of an exact name collision. E.g. Yahoo! is not to be changed to Yahoo! (company) unless there are other things exactly named "Yahoo!", e.g. Yahoo! (novel), Yahoo! (film), etc., and Yahoo! (the company) is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. People are genuinely confused about this, as evidenced at WP:Move review/Log/2015 August#Gangsta (manga) and the lead-up RM at (presently) Talk:Gangsta (manga). Either DIFFPUNCT permits the title of this article to be Gangsta., since independent, reliable sources do correctly give its actual title Gangsta., and do so quite consistently (thus satisfying both WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME simultaneously); or this somehow fails DIFFPUNCT, and WP:AT#PARENDIS applies and this should be at Gangsta (manga), in accord with MOS:TM. There is no provision anywhere for going both conflicting directions at the same time and coming up with a pointless "double-DAB" like Gangsta. (manga), unless and until such time as there are Gangsta. (film), Gangsta. (TV series), etc., and Gangsta. (the manga) is not the primary topic.

Several people are simply not getting it, which suggests that we have a lack of policy clarity here. (The sorta-rationale for this view appears to be "mobile users might not notice the .". But being a mobile user, and even one with crappy eyesight, I don't have any trouble seeing this character on my device; if I did, I would make the font size bigger on my device so I could read properly, like anyone else would.)

Proposed addition: Do not mix typographic distinction with disambiguation (e.g. parenthetic), unless two or more topics are vying for the same distinct title and the article in question is not the primary topic. This would be on a line by itself, between the Passio example and "Plural forms may ...", near the bottom of the section.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose – the current guidance allows both Gangsta. and Gangsta (manga), which can be decided by RM. No need to attempt to rewrite the policy so that it would influence the ongoing move review on Gangsta. → Gangsta (manga). The RM can decide, whether the concluded RM is overturned or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Francis Schonken: Um, current guidance allows both is what I just said and what we'd be clarifying. People are being confused into thinking that neither Gangsta. nor Gangsta (manga) should be used, but that we should use Gansgta. (manga), instead. In reality, the policy does not support that at all (absent multiple subjects vying for the title "Gangsta." with a dot, but people are obviously not getting it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • If some people prefer Gangta. (manga), I don't see why they shouldn't be able to defend that option. It was the least popular option in the RM, seems like WP:SNOW it would prevail. First, I don't think WP:AT should detail every option that would come to a natural halt per WP:SNOW. Second, that Gangta. (manga) would, under current guidance and practice, be an option that garners little traction has more to do with WP:TMRULES (see e.g. the "skate." → "Skate" example included there) so nothing that should be detailed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • If there were a strong consensus in favor of that, recognizing that policy doesn't want such a name yet concluding WP:IAR-style that this case somehow demands one, then yes, of course; we have made all kinds of adjustments to all kind of policies and guidelines on such a basis. Given how poorly the majority of respondents in the RM (and the MR since it) have understand any of the applicable guidelines and policies at all, this seems like an unlikely outcome. PS: Why I thought to bring it up here in particular is that it's not just a TM skate. example, but that sort of thing combined with PARENDAB questions at the same time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: There is no provision anywhere for going both conflicting directions at the same time and coming up with a pointless "double-DAB" - actually there is... the second sentence of WP:CRITERIA states: "There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains." Combine that with the first sentence after the list of criteria, (which reads: These should be seen as goals, not as rules) and it becomes clear that article titles are chosen by flexible consensus, not an inflexible set of "rules". We are allowed to think outside the box.
Now, as Francis has pointed out, there isn't a consensus to use a "double-DAB" in this case. So there is no need to panic. My point is simply that the policy does allow us to at least consider a "double-DAB" as an option. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No panic on my part! LOL. Anyway, "more than one appropriate title" doesn't mean "one title with more than one kind of disambiguation being used without need"; unrelated concepts. It's a general WP principle that any rule can be worked around, of course. That's not a reason for me to not point out what the rules say and mean, and argue both a) against suspending them when not necessary, and b) for clarifying them to avoid the urge to suspend them when not necessary. If we want to just say "there is not box, just do whatever", then we don't need WP:POLICY any longer. Obviously, that's not where we're going. I'm unaware of anyone arguing here that no consensus could ever come to an "exception" and a need for a clarification. Red Slash's earlier comments about the genesis of various specific "exception" kinds of rules as deriving from unusual outcomes (at RM with regard to AT, though this holds more generally) is of course standard operating procedure; I'm even relying upon RS's comments in this regard in a not-directly-related thread over at WT:DAB.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going to say this once, SMcCandlish, and hopefully never again. I wrote WP:DIFFCAPS as it appeared when the move request was proposed. Virtually ever word in there is one I chose, and while I certainly didn't come up with the idea, I am the editor who put almost everything you see in that policy (as of July 15) there. I am not misunderstanding the policy I wrote when I support Gangsta. (manga). And neither are the other people who support that mixed title. The exceptions listed there are there for a reason. (I actually do like Francis's new version of that section though!) Red Slash 12:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:POLICY, including its interpretation and application, evolves over time. No one owns or controls any wording on this site (except to an extent in their own userspace), much less other people's minds in how they think it should evaluated today and in a given context. The meaning of all policy language on WP adapts as other policy that interacts with it shifts over time, as well. Angry outbursts are not going to change that fact, or browbeat other editors into agreeing with you to do counter-intuitive things. Consensus did not conclude to use "Gangsta. (manga)", because other people think it's a bad idea.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Before this gets overly personal... I don't think Red Slash is just "chest beating" by mentioning that he/she wrote the policy statement in question... Red is trying to tell us what the original intent was. Understanding the original intent of any policy statement is helpful. That said, SMC is correct in noting that original intent does not always match current interpretation. It is not at all uncommon for the interpretation of policy statements to grow beyond what was originally intended. Consensus can change... the question is: has it? If so, what is the new consensus? If not, should we re-word the policy to make the consensus clearer? Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I had changed my wording for a reason, though that message from Red Slash did have the character of an angry outburst and was not just trying to tell us what the original intent was. I don't put much faith in "original intent" arguments; the same thing has been used at the WT:DIVA RM (original intent was humorous, but page has been edited since to be attacky), and in attempts to thwart NOR/RS/V reliance on secondary sources (original intent was just to clarify what a secondary source was, while today we depend very heavily on exactly what it means on WP and how a non-secondary source may be used). I don't see any evidence that double-DAB is normal, while DIFFPUNCT is taken as sufficient clarification (i.e., no rationale to double-DAB). It doesn't matter if the original intent wasn't to lay out the idea that small changes are sufficient (though that actually does appear to be the intent, so I'm not sure I see what the argument is about, other than Red Slash being angry about supposedly being told what they meant a long time ago, which no one actually did anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we just add something to DIFFCAPS/DIFFPUNCT to make it clear that a difference in capitalization or punctuation does not sufficiently disambiguate topics if other topics that challenge the primarcy of the capitalized/punctuated topic could reasonably be searched for or used in sources with the same capitalization or punctuation? bd2412 T 23:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to UCRN

The opening para at Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names currently reads:

"Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." (emphasis added).

The proposal here is for the text to read:

"Names are often used in article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."

or, preferably, to read:

"Names are often used in article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some subjects featured in article contents have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."

I know that the wording starts "Names are often used ..." but I think that the proposed text fits better regarding the application of UCRN to such titles as are given within wide ranging contents including, for example, Wikipedia's many articles whose titles begin "List of ...".

  1. This would fit in with article titling such as Tango music, British White cattle, English language and similar.
  2. There is also the issue of contents that marginally divert from the subject area of the topic title so as to cover or give reference to related issues. For instance the articles on Americans, British people, Koreans and Korean Americans variously cover topics pertaining to culture, food and even legal issues, etc.
  3. These proposed changes should be considered in the context of WP:CRITERIA: Precision and Conciseness which are can be gainfully applied to keep article titles and contents in suitably close agreement with one another.

A similarly minor edit to WP:CRITERIA could involve a change from:

  • "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

to:

  • "Recognizability – The title presents a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

GregKaye 12:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Opposed - I think "as" is correct. In most cases, when the subject/topic has a name, we use that name as our article title. It will give us the most recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent title. Now, when the subject/topic has more than one name, we have to choose between names and figure out which one is "best" (This is where COMMONNAME comes in to the discussion, as helping us figure out which name will be most recognizable).
Now, sometimes that "best" choice can't be used... such as when that name is ambiguous (ie more than one subject/topic shares that name). When that happens we need to ask two additional questions: 1) "Is there an alternative name (a name that isn't ambiguous) that achieves as many of the criteria as possible?" ... and 2) Is there a descriptive title that we could use instead?
To my mind, this choice (between using an alternative name or using a descriptive title) is what lies at the heart of the entire "Natural" vs "Parenthetical" debate. Parenthetical disambiguation, is a form of descriptive title... it just happens to be a descriptive title that includes the subject/topic's name. I would agree that WHEN a descriptive title is chosen, we should use the COMMONNAME (assuming there is one) within the descriptive title... but using a descriptive title isn't always the best option. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: (1) Heck, these policies are problematic whether unchanged or changed as proposed. (2) Bluboar, isn't a name ever used within an article title—that is, not comprising the whole of the title? Tony (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup, or course... for example descriptive titles of events frequently contain names... Murder of Chandra Levy, for example. But those rarely (if ever) need disambiguation. My comments were focused purely on titles that do need disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. "isn't a name ever used within an article title—that is, not comprising the whole of the title?" – precisely, that's why this rewrite proposal should be opposed. Here's an example: the name "Godwin" is used in the article title Godwin's law: no way should WP:AT recommend to change the name of that article using the "common name" of the Godwin in question (that common name being Mike Godwin). The common name principle works for names of topics as a whole: it would be quite counterproductive to make it apply to names used as part of an article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
But... Godwin's Law is itself a name... it is the COMMONNAME of the internet adage which is the topic of that article. Now... if there were some other law that was also known as Godwin's Law (say a piece of legislation inspired by the murder of someone named Godwin)... then we might choose to disambiguate the two articles with descriptive title's that included the shared name. For example: Godwin's Law (legislation) and Godwin's Law (internet adage)... On the other hand, if one of them had a viable alternative name, we might consider using that alternative name instead.
There is no "one size fits all" rule for this... The important thing is to come up with a unique title for the topic. Those who insist that there is only one "proper" way to do this are... um... acting like Nazis (hey... I'm not the one who first raised Godwin's Law... just wanted to be the first to apply it). :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • So do we move English language to English (language) or just call it English and say to hell with disambiguation? This makes no sense. "English" is "the most commonly used term for this subject (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) ..." Take a look at the Ngrams for: I speak English,I speak the English language,you speak English,you speak the English language,they speak English,they speak the English language. "English" is what English is most commonly called in English.
GregKaye 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we could move it (if there were a consensus to do so)... English (language) is certainly a valid descriptive title for the topic. On the other hand, English language is a valid (easily recognizable) alternative name for the topic. To me they seem equally good options... However (if this ever became an actual RM) I would support keeping the current title, on the grounds that "While I don't oppose the proposed change, I see no need to change a perfectly good title to something that is not significantly better".
You seem to be looking for clear cut "always do this" rules to apply... but article titles just don't fit always rules (except for one: "No matter what the rule, no matter what the guidance, there are always going to be exceptions"). If you can accept that this policy is about the choices available in RMs... and NOT about dictating the outcomes of those RMs... I think what we say here actually makes a lot of sense. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
How is the current wording not, in effect, "about dictating the outcomes of ... RMs"? It literally states, "Names are often used as article titles ... and ... Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". In practical effect this prescribes that we should use British White rather than British White cattle; English rather than English language; Princess Diana rather than Diana, Princess of Wales; E.T. rather than E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial etc. In such cases I do not think that editors should be faced with prescriptive policy content but should be free to make which ever choice that may best meet readers' needs.
Its also fairly evident that "Names are often not used as article titles" as in the many "List of - content extent qualifier - Foo - qualifier" articles such as List of most common surnames in Asia and List of most consecutive games with touchdown passes in the National Football League and similar contents. Clearly in many cases the mention of "... often ..." in the existing policy wording is open to interpretation so as to mean all title contents other than "List of ..." and similarly formatted titles.
The current "as" wording of policy (which is related to in the first mentioned of the the five WP:CRITERIA) is the more dictatorial form of wording. The recommended "in" wording makes no such prescription which leaves options open.
Once again I think that the practical editing habits of editors who regularly work with article titles need to be considered by editors that regularly work with policy. The "... as ..." wording is prescriptive while the "... in ..." wording is open. The wording "... as or in ..." could also work. The prescriptive "... as ..." wording, on its own, does not leave options as open as it could. I think that it would be better for policy to leave editors free to determine for themselves the best reader friendly / subject representational title for each article. GregKaye 05:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
RE: "Names are often used as article titles" - This is a statement of fact... Names are often used as article titles. I would say that over 80% of the titles in Wikipedia are names. However, note that it says "often" and not "always". It is not dictating that names must be used - or even that they should be used... it is simply noting that they are often used. Of course, sometimes, the topic does not have a "name", and a descriptive phrase is used (History of timekeeping devices for example)... and in a few rare cases a name may exist, but consensus believes that a descriptive title is better... but in probably 80% or more of our articles the title is simply the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. That is simple fact.
RE: Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". This is closer to a dictate... but it is followed by a whole bunch of caveats and exceptions that we have to take into consideration. Also, note that it says "prefers" not "requires". It's not a demand.
As long as we are quoting the policy... let me draw your attention to what I consider the single most important lines in it... they come right after the list of the five criteria, where we say: These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.
What this means is this: while we usually use names, and prefer the COMMONNAME over other names, we don't mandate either... we fully understand that sometimes we either can't use the COMMONNAME (because it is ambiguous, for example), or choose not to use it (because we reach consensus to favor some other title).
Ultimately there are only two firm and fast "rules" stated in this policy: Each title must be unique... and ... disputes are settled by consensus. Everything else stated in the policy is hedged... everything else has caveats and exceptions (both written and unwritten) that make it an option not a mandate. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Replacing one ambiguous name with another

Amphetamines or substituted amphetamines?

There is the drug amphetamine which belongs to the drug class commonly called the amphetamines, which includes amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy (MDMA), DOM and other amphetamine derivatives, some used medically and many recreationally. Because of the ambiguity between amphetamine and the amphetamines prior editors chose to use substituted amphetamines for the drug class. Technically it is not an incorrect term but it presents issues that bother me. Substituted amphetamines is not commonly used but when it is used, it is overwhelmingly used to refer to ecstasy and similar psychedelic amphetamines and methamphetamine. This creates a difficult issue.

Indeed substituted amphetamines may disambiguate from amphetamine the drug here at Wikipedia. But the term suggests amphetamine derivatives, it is commonly used regarding amphetamine derivatives but rarely about amphetamine itself. This is true not only on Google but search engines of scientific/medical literature like PubMed. (Google results where substituted amphetamines conforms to Wikpedia usage overwhelmingly are Wikipedia & Wiki related sites and those copying content from Wikipedia & Wiki related sites.) We do not say substituted benzodiazepines nor substituted barbiturates so the substituted element suggests derivatives. Solving one ambiguity is creating another. Amphetamines may be confused with amphetamine itself, but substituted amphetamines may be confused with all but amphetamine itself. Continually defining what either term means is not desirable yet defining it once or twice invites confusion if one lands in another section or doesn't read carefully.

Policies directing editors to choose a less common name to resolve ambiguity may be used to defend substituted amphetamines, but do not consider names that are much much less common and moreover present confusion moving outside of Wikipedia or with common usage. Imagine a student researching amphetamines starting at Wikipedia, learning the proper term is substituted amphetamines, moving beyond Wikipedia now looking for substituted amphetamines and finding material almost exclusively about designer drugs and methamphetamine. Now we have indeed distinguished amphetamine and amphetamines to the exclusion of the former--which is a lead character in the drug class.

Perhaps "the" would better substitute for the substituted in substituted amphetamines. Sorry, let me try again: I wonder if "the amphetamines" solves the dilemma? Box73 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you point us to the articles where this is an issue? It would help to see all this in context. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_53&oldid=1090629485"