Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Case study re: WP:NATURAL; WP:LEAD; infobox habits; people and the sponging out of WP:COMMONNAME

I'm wondering what might be done so as to coordinate issues relating to the above mentioned topics to the effect of ensuring that peoples' most commonly recognised names get fair representation in title/article contents.

There may be better examples that I might have looked at but I've just been taking a look at the article for Sarah Joy Brown which, after one failed attempted move , was moved to the new title from Sarah Brown (actress) as a result of this discussion.

The effect is that the article now presents:

Sarah Joy Brown

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sarah Joy Brown
Born	Sarah Joy Brown ...
Website	www.sarahbrown.net

Sarah Joy Brown (born February 18, 1975) is an American actress. ...

Despite "Sarah Joy Brown" not being the subject's most commonly recognisable name the move was arguably justified by the current provisions presented in WP:NATURAL which 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. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.

However, in real world practicality, this means that (as in the example presented) the most commonly recognized name will/may not be used at all. I personally regard this as a significant failure in encyclopedic presentation.

Other editors can do their own research if they so choose but: within a 107 page content[1] at www.sarahbrown.net , "Sarah Joy Brown" appears on just 20 pages[2].

IMDB presents "Sarah Brown"[3].

Here is an abridged version of the relatively extensive filmography from that page showing title of production, character name, alternative credit name when applicable and no of episodes when applicable).

Youthful Daze (TV Series) Monica Reynolds ... 15 episodes 2015 Monster Hunters USA and Day Care Center (Short) Zara Daily 2014 Beacon Hill (TV Series) Katherine Wesley 2012 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (TV Series) Marla Louie (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2011-2012 Days of Our Lives (TV Series) Madison James Show all 110 episodes 2011 The Lamp Deb 2009-2011 The Bold and the Beautiful (TV Series) Agnes Jones (as Sarah Joy Brown) Sandy Sommers (as Sarah Joy Brown) Show all 113 episodes 2011 Flashpoint (TV Series) Woman in Sedan No Promises (2011) ... Woman in Sedan 2010 Castle (TV Series) Amanda Livingston The Third Man (2010) ... Amanda Livingston 1996-2009 General Hospital (TV Series) Claudia Zacchara / Carly Benson Corinthos / Carly Benson / ... Show all 417 episodes 2007 K-Ville (TV Series) Eileen McGillis Flood, Wind, and Fire (2007) ... Eileen McGillis 2007 It Was One of Us (TV Movie) Emily Winstead (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2007 The Closer (TV Series) Kristen Shafer 2007 A.M.P.E.D. (TV Movie) Katerina Cabrera 2007 Company Man (TV Movie) Laura Brooks 2006 Monk (TV Series) Mandy Bronson 2006 Big Momma's House 2 Constance (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2005 Heart of the Beholder Diane Howard 2005 Cold Case (TV Series) Josie Sutton 2003-2005 Without a Trace (TV Series) Katherine Michaels / Tess Balkin John Michaels (2005) ... Katherine Michaels (as Sarah Joy Brown) Kam Li (2003) ... Tess Balkin (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2004-2005 As the World Turns (TV Series) Julia Larrabee Jackson Show all 17 episodes 2004 The Perfect Husband: The Laci Peterson Story (TV Movie) Kate Vignatti (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2004 Strong Medicine (TV Series) Perry Touched by an Idol (2004) ... Perry (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2004 Dragnet (TV Series) Nicole Harrison Frame of Mind (2004) ... Nicole Harrison (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2004 Crossing Jordan (TV Series) Susan Mayo Dead or Alive (2004) ... Susan Mayo (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2003 Karen Sisco (TV Series) Harmony Nostalgia (2003) ... Harmony (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2003 10-8: Officers on Duty (TV Series) Astrid Fonseca (as Sarah Joy Brown) Astrid (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2003 The Lyon's Den (TV Series) Hubris (2003) ... Amanda Beacon Manning 2003 For the People (TV Series) Zoe Constantine Power Play (2003) ... Zoe Constantine 2002 Birds of Prey (TV Series) Lucy (as Sarah Joy Brown) 2001 Mysterious Ways (TV Series) Emma Shepard 1997 Hostile Force (TV Movie) Rachel 1996 Power Rangers Zeo (TV Series) Heather 1994-1995 V.R. Troopers (TV Series) Kaitlin Star Show all 44 episodes 2015 A Million Happy Nows (videographer) (post-production) Hide Hide Self (7 credits) 2013 SoapBox with Lilly and Martha (TV Series) Guest as "Sarah Brown" 2012 Dislecksia: The Movie (Documentary) 2010 The 37th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards (TV Special) Herself as "Sarah Brown" 2008 The 35th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards (TV Special) Herself - Presenter as "Sarah Brown" 2000 The 27th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards (TV Special) Herself - Nominee as "Sarah Brown" 1999 The 26th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards (TV Special) Herself - Nominee: Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series as "Sarah Brown" 1998 The 25th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards (TV Special) Herself - Winner: Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series as "Sarah Brown"

Personally I would prefer not to be required to go to this kind of length of research in presenting an RM especially in a context in which a Wikipedia convention such as WP:NATURAL may automatically trump any commonname objections.

The subject's twitter account[4] presents: Sarah Brown @sarahjoybrown and, in with some similarity, she presents herself as "Sarah Brown Actor/Director", at https://www.facebook.com/iSarahJoyBrown .

In all these references both names, "Sarah Brown" and "Sarah Joy Brown", are presented. It is only Wikipedia that fails in this regard.

Thoughts?

GregKaye 11:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names, the word "most" appears to be used excessively, presumably for emphasis, in exaggration beyond the point of error. With the exaggeration, paraphrasing can easily produce absurdity. I suggest that none of the seven "most"s in that section should be there.

"Sarah Joy Brown" is well recognizable as the name of the subject. This form of her name is repesented in sources.

In general, short form names are not suitable without a context being established. Surveys of usage usually fail to distinguish initial introductions to a wide audience from repeated usage within a context.

The last sentence ("It is ... regard") is an unreasonable assertion. "this regard" is not well-defined. "fails" appears to be a particular, undefined usage of the word. I do not agree that anything above implies any failures. Removing the overused "most" would improving things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am confused as to what the issue is here... If I am understanding correctly, the underlying question is how to disambiguate. Assuming this... is someone claiming that the subject is referred to as "Sarah Brown" significantly more often than she is called "Sarah Joy Brown"? I am not sure that the sources support that contention, but if they do then a parenthetical disambiguation probably is the best option (as it retains the most recognizable form of her name). Otherwise (if the sources are more mixed), I see nothing wrong with using the full name to naturally disambiguate. Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar are you agreeing that title choice in BLP should be mainly driven by common usage and that WP:NATURAL is of little or no relevance? GregKaye 09:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I am saying that COMMONNAME will sometimes out-weigh NATURAL... but sometimes the reverse is true. Both COMMONNAME and NATURAL are important. Which out-weighs which is a subject specific determination. Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar Can you please specify circumstances in which you think NATURAL should outweigh COMMONNAME in regard to the titling of BLP articles. GregKaye 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

One circumstance would be when the most commonly used name is ambiguous, but an unambiguous alternative is common enough that it is recognizable. As an example: The former US President is most commonly known as Bill Clinton, so we use that COMMONNAME instead of the more formal William Jefferson Clinton. However, should another "Bill Clinton" become notable (and notable enough that the former US President can't be considered a Primary Topic), we would no longer be able to use that COMMONNAME as the title of an article. We would need to disambiguate. The question then becomes: how?... we could use a parenthetical disambiguation: (Bill Clinton (US President), or we could disambiguate naturally by using a very recognizable alternative name: William Jefferson Clinton. In this case, I think the alternative is COMMON enough that it would be the better choice. No one will be surprised to find his bio article using that title.

Now... let's think about the other "Bill Clinton" article. Let's say this man's formal name is "William Charles Clinton"... however let's also say that this formal name is rarely used (ie it would not be reasonably recognizable). In which case, people would be surprised if we used the title William Charles Clinton. In his case, the better choice would be to disambiguate using a parenthetical: Bill Clinton (occupation).

In other words... there is no "one size fits all" rule to natural vs parenthetical disambiguation... it's subject specific. It all depends on how common (ie how recognizable) the natural alternative actually is. If the alternative name is reasonably common, it makes for a good article title... if not, it makes for a poor article title. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar You have picked a very famous example and, in this case, one who is far better known by one rendering of his name than the second rendering mentioned.

"Bill Clinton" gets "About 25,600,000 results"[5] while

"William Jefferson Clinton" gets "About 349,000 results"[6]

Please consider a situation in, say, "Bill Clinton" was, like most people who feature in Wikipedia articles, not so famous or if you came from a country such as India (another country with a vast number of English speakers). At a usage ration of over 73:1 Bill Clinton (U.S. President) is far more recognisable than William Jefferson Clinton. As well as the first option using a rendition of the name that is far more instantly recognisable, the title even indicates the person mentioned being a "U.S. President". What advantage, in any circumstances, is there in the use of the title William Jefferson Clinton?

Please specify what you mean by "formal name".

If for, for instance, there was a person who was less well known than Bill Clinton and who was, say, most commonly known as:

William Clinton, and let's say that this person had a birth name of and was (to some extent) less well known as:

William Charles Clinton - in what circumstances would the three part name be a better title than, say:

William Clinton (significant reason for the subject's notability)?

Please remember, as per the example above, if a birth name, formal or whatever title such as William Charles Clinton were chosen then this would be repeated in the lead and, perhaps, also in the infobox.

GregKaye 11:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Contributors to article name related discussions

• Comment Here are some statistics that may give some indication in regard to editor involvement in regard to the naming of articles.

In the month of July 2015 edits at a "== x ==" level in "Requested move" threads:

were made on 8 occasions among 208 edits by Blueboar

were made on 13 occasions among 750 edits by Francis Schonken with these edits being made on two occasions on a single thread

were made on 124 occasions among 341 edits by GregKaye

were made on 141 occasions among 1951 edits by In ictu oculi

were made on 19 occasions among 616 edits by PBS

were made on 57 occasions among 279 edits by Red Slash

were made on 39 occasions among 335 edits by SmokeyJoe

My perception is that there are editors that make contribution at WT:AT that have relatively little involvement with WP:RM while there are many editors that have regular involvements at WP:RM that have little or no involvement here. I do not think that this is any where near an ideal situation.

Can I please request editors to let colleagues who are getting on with the work of Wikipedia get on and do it.

GregKaye 11:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that someone is heavily involved here at AT does not mean they have to get involved at RM (or vise-verse). AT is where we set out the generalized policy and guidance about how to title articles... RM is where we apply that generalized policy and guidance in an attempt to reach consensus about specific article titles. Speaking for myself (and no one else), I feel that I can contribute meaningfully to discussions here at AT (which are focused on the generalizations) ... but I often don't know enough about the specific topics to contribute meaningfully in RM discussions (which focus on the specifics). I leave applying the policy (which involves discussing specifics) to those who know the individual topics better than I do. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The view that I certainly hold is that "generalized policy" is there to support the smooth running of general practice. Please consider getting better in touch with this. At times I have found various theoretically generated perspectives here to be quite helpful but when I have seen vetos, oppositions and reverts for the sake of reverts I have had to wonder whether people here have had any clue as to what they were doing or why. I personally do not think that Wikipedia is a place for armchair generals. If this fits, please be involved. GregKaye 13:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg, the flaw in your argument is that one does not need to actively participate in RM discussions to be "in touch" with generalized practice. One can follow the RM discussions and outcomes without actively participating in them. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Converting to percentages and sorting...

• 36% edits by GregKaye
• 20% edits by Red Slash
• 12% edits by SmokeyJoe
• 7% edits by In ictu oculi
• 4% edits by Blueboar
• 3% edits by PBS
• 2% edits by Francis Schonken

Is the point that GregKaye is the best and his opinions should be given the most weight?

I observe that the percentages don't add up to 100%. Should I have scaled them? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Is the point that GregKaye is the best and his opinions should be given the most weight? – LOL! Hmm, there's a big un-LOL here, too: Almost half of GK's total edits are to RM discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find GK's comments can be ignored most of the time, while usually missing some point big time. E.g. IMDb being WP:USERGENERATED research based on that website can and should be ignored. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken Please consider what you chose to ignore. Yes IMDb are just another source but do you dispute the referenced listings of the film credits that were given? I would argue that this is relevant as it represents what seems to me to be an enlightening review of name usage through the subject's career. Do you dispute that the subject in question uses both names in her twitter and facebook accounts as per Sarah Brown @sarahjoybrownat [7] and "Sarah Brown Actor/Director", at https://www.facebook.com/iSarahJoyBrown. Furthermore I think that it is a reasonable conjecture that, if the "Sarah Brown" namespaces at twitter and facebook had been available, that she may have used them.

Francis Schonken You have repeatedly displayed ownership behaviour which, to some extent, is displayed in content here, also in your block log which indicates repeat violations of edit warring over policy content and your numerous battles at ANI. It is very fair, in this kind of context, for me for me to point out that you have a negligible involvement in the actual work of article naming. Yes WP:RM is a regular hang out for me but the main advantage of this has been in the development of a view of the editors that are barely ever encountered in related discussions. GregKaye 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RM isn't jsut a regular hang out for you, but an obsession. And one, I think, that is not particularly healthy. Resolute 15:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Back to the thread

The above is just one example of a WP:BLP where the person concerned is predominantly known by one name and yet Wikipedia predominantly (or, in this place, consistently) presents that person by another name. In my view we move away from encyclopedic presentation of content due to WP:BUREAUCRACY and, as mentioned, I think this is a significant failure in encyclopedic presentation. We consistently present people in ways in which they are less commonly known. GregKaye 08:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In relation to the naming of BLP articles I would like to propose:

1. that WP:NATURAL is of little relevance or no in comparison to issues of common usage.
2. that WP:OFFICIALis of marginally more importance in the determining of a title suited to the subject than WP:NATURAL. (The view here is that WP:NATURAL is primarily used for cosmetic purposes in regard to article titling but is not of value in relation to a representation of the subject).
3. that, in the case where one commonly used version of the subjects' name used in the first line in the lead, that this would back up other arguments for the use of another commonly used version of the subject's name as the article title.

GregKaye 09:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit to natural disambiguation

Talk:Sarah Joy Brown#Requested move 2 made me aware that "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" (bolding added) can be used in a fashion that it supersedes WP:CRITERIA. There are many examples where such alternative names "exist", but weren't chosen for natural disambiguation, e.g. both "renaming" examples in the second paragraph of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Hence I removed the inconsistency from the policy page [8] --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can tweak to make it clearer that WP:NATURAL is not a rule to be followed... it is an option to be considered. It is one of several forms of disambiguation that are considered acceptable Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that is clear from the current wording. A clearer separation between available disambiguation techniques for article titles, and the application of WP:CRITERIA when choosing which one to use was proposed at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Combined proposal. Someone described that as "instruction creep", and indeed flagging every sentence at WP:AT with either "this is only a suggestion, not a rule" or, alternatively, "this is a rule" would soon amount to instruction creep. The only improvement I suggested now was to make it a bit more foolproof against quoting out of context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking at edits (but I have to wonder WTF the whole intermediary section of antagonism was all about).

The edit 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. Do not, however, use oObscure or made-up names can however never be used for natural disambiguation".

In relation to non bio articles WP:NATURAL has had practical application and has often acted as a helpful guide for the development of readily digestible contents. Demoting WP:NATURAL from policy is a major step and may warrant a wider consensus discussion. GregKaye 12:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Provisionally I have edited to: "Obscure or made-up names should not be used in natural disambiguation." A major facility of natural disambiguation is that it permits a qualifier to be added to a title so as to naturally provide topic clarity.

In all these cases a commonly known content remains in the title and yet additional wording, I think, appropriately removes potential ambiguity. GregKaye 12:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, those were moves performed by admins after consensus was reached with WP:RM to move them; I was the lister of the RMs. I didn't just go manually move them to suit some personal preference. Some of what's listed above are moves that did not actually take place, or which took place differently. Peppin Merino and Dorset Down remain at those names. Indo-Brazilian is, and Blue Grey redirects to, a disambiguation page (the breed articles are, yes, at Indo-Brazilian cattle and Blue Grey cattle). Canadian Speckle Park was weirdly moved to Speckle Park which is even worse, and American White Park remains at that name (but should be at White Park cattle; the "American" in it is specifically a Canadianism and not supported by non-Canada-specific sources).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A differentiation between a commonname designation of subject and a natural disambiguation of a title

There is a huge difference in the Wikipedia titling of a subject between making an internal change from the format of the subjects designation that is most commonly used and the adding of a qualifier.

In other words it seems to me that a use of John Lucian Smith as a title for John Smith (flying ace) is not encyclopedic while uses such as of British White cattle in place of the highly ambiguous British White make perfect sense. In the second case a useful qualification/clarification is given in regard to subject matter in a form that can only help the reader. GregKaye 09:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is not a "rule" unto itself... the "rule" is that titles have to be Recognizable. COMMONNAME is the mechanism by which we determine Recognizability. :So... how does that fit into disambiguation? Again, the question of what is the best form of disambiguation is subject specific. In the case of Smith, we have to ask: how recognizable is the alternative name (John Lucian Smith)?... If it is reasonably recognizable, then it makes for a good (disambiguated) article title. But... If the full name isn't reasonably recognizable, then a parenthetical disambiguation is best. And... that determination has no baring on other articles (See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The fact that we might chose parenthetical disambiguation in the Smith article does not mean we should choose parenthetical disambiguation in some other article. Each article title is unique. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This may be me but from previous experience (as also previously mentioned) there was an instance when I was looking for an article of a journalist who's articles, in U.S. based publications, were written under the name "Graeme Wood". I found my way to the article on Graeme Wood (cricketer) which, at that time, had a hatnote with reference to Graeme C.A. Wood. I failed to access this at the time and it was only at a later date that I noted uses of the longer form of his name. I think that it is reasonable to say that, following reference to news articles that were written by a journalist who predominantly signs as: "Graeme Wood", a Wikipedia title as Graeme Wood (journalist) would be more recognisable than than a title such as Graeme C.A. Wood. GregKaye 11:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup... That's one where the descriptive (parenthetical) form of disambiguation was thought best. The alternative (natural) name "Graeme C.A. Wood" was not considered recognizable enough.

On the other hand, I am sure that I could find an article about some other journalist where the alternative name was considered best... because (in that case) the alternative was considered recognizable enough. Each case is unique, and what works best in one article may not work best in another. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• "John Lucian Smith as a title for John Smith (flying ace) is not encyclopedic". Disagree with this. "John Lucian Smith" is a perfectly normal looking title to expect to find in an encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the issues here have similarities to the disagreement in our views over Hillary Rodham Clinton but at least that title could be classed as encyclopedic. As far as I can see a title like Graeme C.A. Wood is not acceptable while a title like John Maynard Keynes is. GregKaye 14:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Greg... Here's the thing... A title like Graeme C.A. Wood might be considered perfectly acceptable... even though the specific title Graeme C.A. Wood was not. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar... Here's the thing... I made a specific statement, "... it seems to me that a use of John Lucian Smith as a title for John Smith (flying ace) is not encyclopedic". I have also said "a title like John Maynard Keynes is" encyclopedic. What might and what might not be used is typically decided on consensus in RM discussions.

At an, I think, extreme you advocate using William Jefferson Clinton over Bill Clinton (U.S. President). Can I ask you, if the commonly known names of various other presidents were ambiguous, would you also advocate:

• George Walker Bush over George W. Bush (U.S. President) and
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt over Franklin D. Roosevelt (U.S. President)?

Again, as per the purpose of this thread, a title such as George Walker Bush will only be repeated worthlessly in the first line of the lead with the result that the reader is supplied with no additional useful information.

WP:BLP sets a president in saying that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity,..." In this I think that a priority can be to faithfully present a subject in the way that they most commonly present themselves and in line with the way that they are generally presented. WP:Bureaucracy regarding cosmetic priorities such as editor desire to remove parenthesis have to be discarded. We are meant to be writing an encyclopedia that faithfully presents content. GregKaye 01:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

On Bush, note that we have already had to abandon the COMMONNAME (George Bush) due to the ambiguity with his father. That said... Yes, I probably would support using the full names as disambiguation (or in the case of Bush, further disambiguation)... There may well be exceptions, but US Presidents are frequently referred to by their formal full formal name... so, even if that is not not the COMMONNAME, the full name is probably recognizable enough that that would make a very good disambiguation. Unlike using the full names/initials for Wood or Smith.

As for the lead... if the first sentence worthlessly repeats what is in the title... simply re-write the sentence. No more problem. On the rest... I don't disagree on WP:Bureaucracy... a lot of times there really isn't any significant benefit to changing from parenthetical to natural, or vise-versa. As the policy says If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. (Of course, when someone proposes a change of title, they almost always think they have a "good reason"... it's up to everyone else to decide whether that reason is good enough or not). Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This, I guess is another can of worms.

• "George W. Bush" AND ("United States" OR "U.S.") AND president gets "About 27,600,000 results"[9]

"George Bush" AND ("United States" OR "U.S.") AND president gets "About 14,600,000"[10] (with designation potentially applying to both subjects)

"George Walker Bush" AND ("United States" OR "U.S.") AND president gets "About 138,000 results"[11]

The primary reason that we use George W. Bush is due to WP:COMMONNAME. Then, in context of a father-son and (in effect) a predecessor and successor relationship (and without reference seeming to be possible to an RM) I suspect that the main reason for the use of the designation George H. W. Bush is largely based on a valid application of WP:CRITERIA Consistency.

This situation takes things to an even further extreme to that of:

• "Bill Clinton" AND ("United States" OR "U.S.") AND president gets "About 23,900,000 results"[12] and

"William Jefferson Clinton" AND ("United States" OR "U.S.") AND president gets "About 205,000 results"[13]

The ratio of use between "George W. Bush" and "George Walker Bush" (based on the raw google statistics 27,600,000 / 138,000) is 200:1.

My main point in the above is that a BLP related application of WP:NATURAL (so as to add content such as middle names and middle initials as additions to a most commonly recognizable form of name) presents the issue of a potential to completely remove the commonname of the person from the article.

We could end up with:

George Walker Bush

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

editor chosen designation but this will only be added in articles in which the infobox is used

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician and businessman

...

GregKaye 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean we could end up with the opening sentence repeating the name that is used in the title... as we do in our article on William Howard Taft? Horrors!

Seriously... is such repetition really a problem? We routinely repeat the name from the title in the opening sentence (it makes sense to do so). It is not, however, a requirement that we do so - for example we don't do so at the Bill Clinton article (as I have said... for every example where we use format X... we can come up with a counter example where we didn't use format X and used format Y instead. Such flexibility is intentional. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As you well know that is exactly what I have been saying from the start. Yes seriously. Clearly repetition of a designation of a BLP in cases that this name is not the person's most commonly recognised name is clearly a problem.

I have no clue why you now present the topic of "William Howard Taft" as, from preliminary checks, this seems to very clearly be his most commonly recognisable name. PLEASE NOTE:

• "William Howard Taft" "Secretary of war" gets 85,000 results[14] while

"William Taft" "Secretary of war" gets 10,800 results[15].

At a very different extreme you would advocate an application of WP:NATURAL to the extent of presenting George Walker Bush just to avoid presenting George W. Bush (U.S. president) even though, if anything, the second title option gives further reference for topic clarification in addition to using most commonly recognisable name.

The problem is an under representation of the person's most commonly recognised name and, for this reason, I do not think that WP:NATURAL should be applied to mid flow inserts into an otherwise commonname designation. Your preference for a title such as George Walker Bush as a solution to a theoretically ambiguous title seems to me to be utterly unencyclopedic. I raised this thread on an interpretation that an over emphasis on WP:NATURAL has been applied in relation to BLP subjects. A potential lack of presentation of common name would be a problem but, potentially for nothing more than aesthetically based preferences, it is one that it seems that you would prefer to ignore.

We cannot present content for the sake of aesthetics. We have to present content for the sake of being an encyclopedia. GregKaye 14:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)

Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. Your project is being notified because the proposal is a major change to a topic-specific naming conventions guideline.

The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.

Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 03:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• May I suggest that if you want to amend WP:Naming conventions (ships), the first place you should discuss it is at that convention's talk page... I have taken the liberty of re-posting the above at that talk page, just so no one accuses you of forum shopping. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Using a period (.) as a natural disambiguation

Due to "no consensus" discussions at Talk:Gangsta., how would this as a precedent affect the likes of Janet (album), Shakira (album), and Melody (Japanese singer)? --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to use the preexisting thread, #Using a . to distinguish an article, but it's getting older and larger. Therefore, a fresher discussion might be needed. --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say a "no consensus" result should not be seen as being a precedent... for anything. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Gangsta. RMs were confused by being a multi-horse race. As per the last close, the decision is clearly between "Gangsta." and "Gansta (manga)". "Gangsta. (manga)" title has been fairly well rejected. Multiple participants, myself included, only came around to rejecting "Gangsta. (manga)" in the process of that last discussion. As that was the formal proposal, and many !voters were not explicit as to multi-choice options, it would have been a stretch for a closer to find other than "no consensus". Another RM will be needed. Probably it is best to wait a while. Until then, talk of precedent is premature. I don't think this is a well formulated RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

SMALLDETAILS/Special characters issue

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Confusion on differing Arabic apostrophe like symbols. Apparently Sha'ban/Sha`ban, Shaaban and Shaban are three different pages: is an apostrophe(-like character) enough to distinguish article titles on topics that are frequently indicated with the name without the apostrophe(-like character)? And without proper hatnote disambiguation for the first no less? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Titles should not be allowed to readily allow of mis-recognition by a reasonable reader familiar with one of the topics, if misrecognition results in the reader being taken to an article unconnected to the article they were expecting. ie. readers should not be subjected to astonishment.

However, if the misrecognized title is not an article, but a disambiguation page, then that is OK. A disambiguation page is short, very easily read even on a little phone, and is supposed to be very easy to use to re-navigate to the page wanted. In the above, Shaaban and Shaban are both disambiguation pages, so there is not a problem here requiring fixing. Someone wanting Sha'ban and misrecognizing Shaaban or Shaban as Sha'ban will be well serviced by either DAB page, both efficiently get the reader back to Sha'ban. Even if it is via the redirect Sha'aban, it is really not so bad at dealing with Persian transliterated into English.

As there is no title disambiguation by funny similar looking characters, there is no problem with respect to this policy. The choice of character for transliteration is a matter for the MOS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• It would be nicer to the readers if all disambiguation pages were suffixed with "(disambiguation)", revealing in hovertext and the big letters at the top of the page that the page is not a proper article. Shaaban and Shaban should be at Shaaban (disambiguation) and Shaban (disambiguation), for clarity. If they were, even this little discussion would be so much easier to read. The historic aversion of having Shaaban redirect Shaaban (disambiguation) seems to be without any good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, err, no, the current disambiguation is a mess, doesn't seem to follow disambiguation guidelines by far or near, and makes navigation cumbersome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? In the current disambiguation generally, or Shaaban? Lots about WP:AT & WP:DAB is a mess, but I think you mean something specific? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

When there are alternative spellings to indicate the same topic the disambiguation should be done better. Tried to fix it (the disambiguation).

Back to the main topic of this thread: when Sha'ban/Sha`ban and Shaban are alternative spellings that generally, all of them, rather refer to the month, than any of the other topics, why should the first two of these links lead to the article on the month, while the third redirects to a disambiguation page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would think that all of these should have the month as the Primary Topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Think I got it sorted in that sense now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for Naming conventions (sports teams)

I've made a proposal to change the naming conventions for sports teams so that they fall in line more closely with general naming convertions. Participation would be appreciated at this page. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:CRITERIA

"However, when this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered." Under WP:SMALLDETAILS, shouldn't "can" be "cannot" instead, or am I misinterpreting something here?—Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this applies to definite and indefinite articles. Isn't WP:THE good enough? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong. It discourages a/an/the unless proper noun includes one of them. Maybe WP:NATURAL and WP:primary topic are not enough? --George Ho (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of an objection or explanation, I'm semi-boldly changing it to "cannot", which seems to make more sense.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Err, no: "However, when this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered." is what is intended, don't understand the confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I'm in the dark about what "this" refers to then. SMALLDETAILS begins by advocating the use of typographical distinctions, e.g. Red meat vs Red Meat, but then the text in question precedes an example to move P!nk to Pink (singer). Which one is considered the "less ambiguous page name" here? I though it was "Pink (singer)", implying that "P!nk was the title that was wandering from WP:CRITERIA. Please explain how I was supposed to interpret this. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA such renaming should be considered." might be technically less prone to misunderstanding, but I think current wording is clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Can "this" in the current wording be replaced with something more succinct? I'm still confused what "this" is referring to. Is "this" the use of disambiguation, or is "this' the use of small details?—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

? "this" refers to "renaming to a less ambiguous page name" (see rephrasing above). Really don't understand the confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"this" is defined in my dictionary as "referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned". In the issue I raised here, you seem to be saying that "this" is not referring to something just mentioned, e.g. small details, but rather something mentioned later i.e. the later phrase "renaming to a less ambiguous page name". That is not intuitive.—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My dictionary (pocket OED) indicates that "this" can be used to refer to anything "near". As I'm not a native English speaker I'd defer to anyone who is, anyway, as said the intention is that in the sentence "this" refers to "renaming to a less ambiguous page name", and the native English speakers who read it, had not problem with it (seeWikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 53#First paragraph). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

With the recent rewording, probably the statement meant renaming to less ambiguous title without violating or failing WP:CRITERIA. Isn't that right? As for changing to "cannot", that would have meant using a title that would have violated or failed WP:CRITERIA. George Ho (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bold and superscript exceptions

In the section on "Italics and other formatting" we say:

• Other types of formatting (such as bold type and superscript) can technically be achieved in the same way, but should generally not be used in Wikipedia article titles (except for articles on mathematics).

This recent edit added science articles to the exception. I have reverted because I am not sure if the addition has consensus or not (there has been no discussion on it)... so, please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Common name and fictional characters solely or mostly known by their first names

I started a WP:RfC that is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."

I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the use of the word "Stampede" in Article titles and content

An RFC has been opened at Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch to discuss the use of the word "Stampede" in article titles and content and may be of interest to editors interested in Title issues.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERB

This appears to suggest verbs should redirect to noun forms. WP:ADJECTIVE ? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC initiated re whether "Vulture fund" is derogatory and should not be an article title despite COMMONNAME

An editor has initiated an RFC at: WP:Words to Watch regarding the use of the term "Vulture fund" as an article title as it may be considered pejorative despite being a COMMONNAME. Editors interested in title policy may want to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:POVNAME (part of this policy) and WP:POVNAMING (part of the NPOV policy). We don't avoid pejorative sounding names - if they are indeed NAMES. However, we do avoid pejorative DESCRIPTIONS. So... the question is, is "Vulture fund" a NAME or a DESCRIPTION? Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Witch!

So, is Michael Howard (Witch) correctly named? I'd have expected at least Michael Howard (witch), if not Michael Howard (practitioner of Witchcraft). I'm all for people being allowed to self-declare their identity, but this seems strange. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the correct disambiguation would be Michael Howard (witchcraft). Neither witch or witchcraft is a proper noun so no caps. I think "witch" would be misleading as he was not a witch and "practitioner of witchcraft" is unnecessarily long.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation should highlight what makes the person notable. Being a practitioner of witchcraft is not really what makes this subject notable... he is notable for writing about witchcraft and esoterica. Therefor... I would suggest Michael Howard (author). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We'd never use "Michael Howard (Catholic)" or "Michael Howard (Catholicism) or "Michael Howard (practitioner of Catholicism)". Also, various pagan writers become notable for other non-fiction and fiction writings. Next, disambiguations like "Michael Howard (witchcraft)" should be avoided because they do not actually disambiguate the topic, but simply confuse it: Michael Howard is not a kind of witchcraft, or a feature of or subject within the practice of witchcraft. Finally, whether or not "[w|W]itchcraft" should be capitalized as the proper name of a formal religion like Hinduism, Islam, and particular, organized branches of paganism (e.g. Asatru), or left lower case like the common name of a spectrum of folk spiritual practices, as in paganism, animism, hoodoo, etc.^*, we would not use "Michael Howard (Priest)" or "Michael Howard (Buddhist Monk)"; these are not official titles within a notable institution, like Abbot, Dalai Lama, or Archbishop. There is no central organization behind witchcraft. Even if Howard is a member of some particular witchcraft group, and bore a title within it, one might write of him that "he is the High Priest of the Coven of the Purple Wolf" or whatever, but we would not disambiguate him as "Michael Howard (High Priest)".
[* On the capitalization of folkways in general, WP:RS on the matter are inconsistent, at least on the surface, when it comes to usage. Some sorts of specialist sources lean toward capitalization, as they do in almost all fields, and general-audience ones avoid it. When it comes to advice, modern style guides (academic and journalistic, British and American) rather uniformly advise something along the lines of "when in doubt, do not capitalize", i.e. do not elevate things to proper-name status unless usage is consistently in favor of it in a particular case. Consequently, most general-audience publications, which follow such style guides, do not capitalize labels such as witchcraft, shamanism, pagan, voodoo/vodoun, obeah, etc., unless and until the folk religion/practice has a recognized governing body and is classified as an organized religion. There's a grey area with things like Santeria and Candomblé, which by dint of being pagan-synchretic offshoots of Catholicism, seem to get capitalized more often. Aside from those walking-the-line cases, usage closely mirrors that of the ultra-broad racial terms [b|B]lack and [w|W]hite, and of political philosophies like [s|S]ocialism and [f|F]eminism, with only certain camps of specialist sources consistently capitalizing them (mostly works that come from within the ambit of the labeled subject, or from an "identity politics" academic platform that proposes the capitalization of all human-group labels, or all self-labels, depending on the exact position being taken), while almost all other writers use lower case. This may not primarily be a WP:AT issue, since most of these epithets are single-word, and so would be capitalized anyway in the context of an article title, though we may infrequently use them as parenthetical disambiguators.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be at Michael Howard (Luciferian) per cat In ictu oculi (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of alternative names

Blueboar, my addition to Treatmenmt of alternative names, the section where I made my paragraph-two edit, may perhaps be as you say "instructions", but to me my addition was not instructions "creep". What I have to offer is a simple rounding out and fulfillment of the description, i.e. completing the sphere of "information" concerning "how to" use the set of alternative names.

As treatments of alternative names it made mention only of using them to create redirects and if necessary a dab page. These are both navigation moves from the search box. But it is also necessary to know, not necessarily to do, or to understand, that when those navigations fail, (and they do), and search results appear instead, a page score that makes the top twenty pages is just as good (almost) as a redirect, and just as good as a dab page. So I just added the missing search box cause.

Granted it is highly technical, and perhaps too much to ask users to do, but "instruction creep"? Have I answered that well enough? There is actually a use for alternative names that was not mentioned? It solves the search aspect as well as the navigational aspects?

I learned from Village pump that some users are frustrated with search results, and I felt I had to contribute that experience here that I learned there: PrimeHunter's answer to "how to lessen the frustration of searching for an article" is what taught me. I have since advocated for Search, which is often misunderstood. I await your opinion on my answer to you "instruction creep" question, and ask that you would allow my addition about Search to stand.

Firmly, — CpiralCpiral 23:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I used the wrong term in calling it "Instruction Creep"... My concern is that the more extra verbage we add to the policy, the easier it becomes for editors to miss the main point behind the WP:AT#Treatment of alternative names section... which is to tell our editors what to do with names that are not chosen as the article title. To my mind, all we really have to say to answer that question is: "Mention it in the lede and link it as a redirect". The section is not meant to be an explanation of why we list alternative names.

From your comments... what you seem to want is a guideline that will help readers find information on Wikipedia... that may actually be something Wikipedia needs ... but this policy isn't where we should put it. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well enough. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 03:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A perfect example

See Talk:JIRA#Requested move 30 October 2015 for a discussion relevant to WP:TITLETM, currently flagged as under discussion but that discussion seems to have stalled. I propose that we add JIRA to the section (and also to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks) as a perfect example of a case where capitalisation is appropriate although the name is not an acronym.

I have posted a heads-up [16] at the MOS talk page. Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• PLEASE STOP... wait until the RM is completed and THEN (if needed) discuss changes to policy and guidance. To change policy and guidance while the RM is still happening can be seen as trying to game the system. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Even after an RM is completed, an outcome should only become a guideline example if it is well supported by consensus and evidence. In the case of that particular article, one problem is that there is a lack of reliable sources that are independent of the topic that discuss the subject. (It doesn't even seem entirely clear that the topic is notable.) For that reason, it may not be an appropriate or stable example. Another issue in this case is that the amount of participation in the discussion has been rather limited (so far). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well... a google news search does turn up quite a few hits (enough to show a pattern of capitalization in independent source usage)... whether these sources discuss the topic in enough depth to satisfy WP:NOTE is another question (and one not for this talk page). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that more participation is highly desirable... hence my heads-ups here and at the MOS talk. Feel free to provide others if you think they are called for. As for whether this is and/or will be a good example, yes, that's exactly the focus of the discussion here (ideally). Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop discussing here. As was pointed out above, this is an attempt to garner additional voices to a discussion that was started at Requested move 30 October 2015. If this is just a policy or guideline discussion, feel free to continue. If it's about the specific case, please go to the other location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(Ahem) I seem to be posting this a lot, but see WP:mxt, and if you disagree (or feel it needs to be clarified etc), start a discussion at Help talk:Using talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Should this discussion even exist

Please post discussion at the RM that is relevant to that particular case. I see no reason that discussion relevant to the wider issues raised at the RM should not commence here immediately, nor any problem with putting heads-ups to that important case here and at the MOS talk page. Best not to clutter the RM with the more general issues, nor this talk page with the specifics. Each in their place, please. (And all please see WP:mxt.)

Comments on that subissue welcome here (and responses from Blueboar and Walter Görlitz especially of course). Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting RM

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The RM at Talk:Twentse Landgans#Requested move 10 November 2015 has been relisted for lack of participation. It involves conflicting interpretations of WP:NATURALDAB, WP:COMMON, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:USEENGLISH, and several other policy points all at once.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom decision will directly affect "language activism"

WP:AT (and WP:MOS, and WP:RM) are frequently beset by language change advocacy, and we'll shortly have something to use against this particular form of PoV pushing. The upcoming ArbCom decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision: The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie [sic] and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change.

While that's not an AT/MOS case in particular, this is a general statement of principle, and its reasoning obviously applies broadly, including to various sorts of campaigning that are brought to AT and MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Titles starting with W:

Articles starting with W: are currently exclusively reserved for Wikipedia technical pages. What to do with such articles which should be titled the same way? For example W. Crichton Shipyard (Okhta) should be renamed W:m Crichton & C:o Okhta shipyard. I am also working on an article about W:m Crichton & C:o. What to do with these cases, is there any chance to use the real names as titles? --Gwafton (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I launched the article Wm Crichton & C:o under false name, hoping that it could be moved under W:m Crichton & C:o. --Gwafton (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Using a colon (W:m) to abbreviate the name William (or when abbreviating the word Company) is definitely not a standard form used in English language sources... I think the company name can be anglicized to a more normal form that is used. A quick google search on the topic seems to show that English language sources use "Wm Crichton & Co." for the parent company... I think that would be acceptable for the shipyard as well. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the company was not British, so you cannot refer directly to English language sources. The contemporary sources use W^m Crichton & C^o (as on the envelope seal in the article) or W:m Crichton & C:o (see a newspaper advert). --Gwafton (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter whether the company is British or not... we still base our titles on how it is presented in English language sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. See also WP:Official names. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The company logo, as in the lead image of the article, has Wm. Crichton & Co. (yes, with superscripts, but we don't do superscripts in article titles, so "Wm. Crichton & Co." it is). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It can stay as Wm. Crichton & Co. then. What do you think, how should it be written in the articles? According to the title Wm. Crichton & Co., or either of the contemporary W^m Crichton & C^o (which was apparently preferred) or W:m Crichton & C:o (compromised)? --Gwafton (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Again... look at how various English language sources present the name, and follow what the majority of those sources do. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are hardly any English speaking sources about shipbuilding in Finland and they anyway apply typography that is either limited by character setting or author's willingness of putting effort on correctness. Therefore, I would not regard them as applicable sources. The contemporary typography applied by the company is more trustworthy. Therefore, I suggest spelling it either W^m Crichton & C^o or W:m Crichton & C:o. --Gwafton (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, far as typography of names -- how names, and characters within names, are presented, as opposed to actual spelling -- I guess our de facto rule is we go with conservative contemporary typography -- hence "Pink (singer)" and not "P!nk", "Walmart" and not "Walmart*" or "WAL*MART" etc. -- unless

1. a particular typography is quite well known and

2. we can render it and

3. most sources use it and

4. the alternate-typography people happened to have won that battle for that article, or else the typography's never been challenged.

Hence eBay, Yahoo! but Macy's rather than Macy*s. Fun (band) not "fun.", India Arie not India.Arie. Toys "R" Us has the quotes but not the backwards R. We never changed Prince (musician) to File:Prince logo.svg [Display of actual non-free image removed per WP:NFCC#9. DMacks (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)] -- couldn't if we wanted to. OTOH Da Youngsta's have their apostrophe, and several other groups have odd typography here, probably for reason #4. And so on; it's a bit of a hodgepodge.

Your entity falls very much sort of the fame of Yahoo and Ebay, so I wouldn't bend our rules for it (in fact if it was up to me I wouldn't ben our rules even for Yahoo and Ebay, and I bet others agree). You have #2 and #3 going for you, but not #1.

I don't see us using titles for entities that we aren't going to use in the text. And I don't see us using constructions like "W^m Crichton & C^o" in the texr any more than we are going to use "&^c." or refer to dates as "the 19th instant" or describe entities as moving thither, or like anachronisms, even if our sources do so.

The main virtues of a title are to help the reader find the article and to quickly understand what the article is about when they do find it. I don't see where the "W:m Crichton & C:o" helps that. I would assume some sort of typo and other readers might also. Herostratus (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that W^m Crichton & C^o and W:m Crichton & C:o follow the contemporary spelling rules without intentional pecularity. The only problem is the Wikipedia practice of reserving all W: articles for the technical pages. If Crichton's given name would have been Joseph instead of William, the company name would have been most likely spelled J:os Crichton & C:o and the naming problem would not exist. In my opinion Wikipedia's self-created naming limitations should not be applied in cost of correctness.

Is there workaround for naming an article starting with W: so that it would not lead to a technical page? --Gwafton (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Correctness" on Wikipedia is not based on what the company's logo does... "correctness" is based on what reliable sources that are independent of the company do. It is extremely rare to find sources that abbreviate names using a colon. Joseph is most commonly abbreviated as "Jos.", William as "Wm." and Company as "Co." Follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I do understand what the requirement of using independent sources mean and what it is for, but applying it in this case is quite odd, as the people in the company is understandably expected to know best how its name should be spelled. Although they have used W^m Crichton & C^o on their logo they have spelled the name as W:m Crichton & C:o on newspaper advert (linked above). I can also dig old newspaper articles where the company name is mentioned, as some old newspapers are scanned and can be found in Internet.

I think that we should not rename an old company according the modern spelling. If we did so, then also Wärtsilä should be called Värtsilä because W was replaced by V in Finnish in some spelling reform. --Gwafton (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper articles with name W:m Crichton & C:o mentioned are listed here:

• Åbo Tidning 6 May 1888, page 2, bottom of the 4th column: [17]
• Åbo Underrättelser 6 May 1888, page 2, 2nd half of the 4th column (under title Ångbåtsutskjutning): [18]
• Åbo Tidning 26 October 1884, page 2, beginning of the 3rd column (under title Nytt Tullångfartyg): [19]

Is more third-party evidence needed? --Gwafton (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You're being pedantic. There's no "one right answer" to most questions like this. You make a reasonable case, but one that I don't agree with and so far it looks like no one else does either, so I'd consider letting it go. The only purpose of titles is to serve the reader, and sticking colons in doesn't do this IMO. As to how to actually request this fix, see Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests, although I wouldn't request developer effort on this if people aren't going to actually countenance it being implemented. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nickname in quotation marks in title

Why is it that a title formatted as First "nickname" Last like Ed "Too Tall" Jones" is discouraged by WP:NICKNAME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, having anything in quotation should be the exception, not the rule. (1) It is not formal, and formal should be preferred, all else being near equal, because formal is well associated with doing things properly. (2) The quotation marks are being used as scare quotes, making is ambiguous if it is the accepted name or not. It means it is fuzzy space between a source-used COMMONNAME and not. Better to jump one way or the other and be unambiguous. He is Ed Jones or Too Tall Jones or Too Tall, just don't try to go two bob each way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Names likes Ed "Too Tall" Jones should be discouraged, with lots of use in sources required to justify such a title. Ed "Too Tall" Jones has source use to justify use of the title normally discouraged. The word "discouraged" is appropriate, it appropriately leaves open the door to justified exceptions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have to disagree somewhat. This can not (and should not) be decided on a one-size-fits-all basis... it needs to be decided on a subject by subject basis, following the principle of Recognizability. It really depends on what the sources do. In some cases, the sources overwhelmingly include the nickname (in scare quotes) when discussing the subject... and when that occurs Wikipedia should follow the sources and do so as well (as that will be the most recognizable variation of the name). If the sources don't (or if they are more mixed) then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Per Blueboar, and per the specific example mentioned, Ed "Too Tall" Jones is almost always referred to, by reliable sources, as Ed "Too Tall" Jones. He's not commonly called Ed Jones, nor is he commonly called Too Tall Jones. He's commonly called Ed "Too Tall" Jones. Follow the sources rules all. He's common name includes both the first name Ed, the nickname in quotes, and the last name Jones. See Here for example. I did a search for Ed Jones NFL, and you can clearly see that the preponderance of reliable sources use Ed "Too Tall" Jones. --Jayron32 16:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you do if an individual is often referred to with a nickname and their real name, but never really as "first 'alias' last". Also, is there some sort of relevant discussion in the talk page archive, I seem to have trouble finding one.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean a situation where the sources ignore the first name? for example where "Joseph Q. Smith" is commonly called "Lucky Smith"?

In such a case, we would apply WP:COMMONNAME... the article title would be Lucky Smith (as that will be the most recognizable option). His more formal name should be mentioned prominently in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph, and perhaps linked as a redirect... but the title would follow the most recognizable option. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Prime example being "Weird Al" Yankovic, as that is how it is formatted on all his releases , etc. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• 'The word "discouraged" is appropriate, it appropriately leaves open the door to justified exceptions' addresses the idea that 'This can not (and should not) be decided on a one-size-fits-all basis'; i.e., the wiggle-room in "discouraged" means it is not a one-size-fits-all line item. It's discouraged in part because hardly anyone is referred to this way as their WP:COMMONNAME. People will generally refer to either "Ed Jones" or "Too Tall Jones", not "Ed 'Too Tall' Jones", and when some sources do use a longer form for clarity, they do not do so consistently with regard to formatting, and may render it "Ed (Too Tall) Jones", "'Too Tall' Ed Jones", "Too Tall (Ed) Jones", etc., etc. In addition to the other reasons given.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, you picked the wrong example. As a lifelong NFL fan, I can confirm that Ed "Too Tall" Jones is pretty much always called Ed "Too Tall" Jones, exactly like that. What you say in the sentence "People will generally..." may apply to many people with many nicknames. Not in this one case. Here's a modern video by Sports Illustrated. Here's a famous GEICO ad, Here's an interview from an local morning show. I can find dozens of other examples. You can occasionally find people just calling him Ed Jones or Too Tall Jones, but the preponderance of uses is as Ed "Too Tall" Jones, both speaking and written. --Jayron32 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Beg to differ. A few seconds on Google demonstrates otherwise [20]. The #2 and #3 results are just Too Tall Jones without "Ed" (and without quotations marks or parentheses), and the rest of the results show various formats, just as I said they would, even when they use the long version: Ed Too Tall Jones, Ed 'Too Tall' Jones, Ed (Too Tall) Jones, Ed "Too Tall" Jones, all on the first page of results. The subject himself appears to prefer Ed Too Tall Jones without any markup, judging from his official website (though I know as a Web developer that sometimes such decisions are left up to the developer – if we ask about some typographic question of this sort and don't get an answer, we insert what we prefer and get back to work, allowing the client to correct it later).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if we're looking at the same results. There are several forms indeed, but the ones with Too Tall within single or double quotation marks make up around 80% of results, and even the two with just Too Tall Jones refer to him as Ed "Too Tall" Jones in the first sentence. His (?) Twitter account is titled Ed 'Too Tall' Jones, and his (?) Facebook account is Ed "Too Tall" Jones. And double quotation marks are generally Wikipedia in-house style in such cases, providing IMO an easy winner. No such user (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I was casually looking at the credits for the 2015 film The Wedding Ringer and whoa, there's Ed "Too Tall" Jones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) I added a short clarification. While I'm wary of instruction creep, I think the issue has been raised frequently enough to deserve a coverage in the guideline. For example, it was raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Use of quotation marks in names back in April. No such user (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It does come up frequently. I've suggested several times before that we need to take a programmatic, algorithmic approach to this. Basically something like this:

• If the non-legal name is a nickname that is not derived from the legal name, put it in quotation marks before the surname: Alexis Barton "Chicken-whisperer" Chen
• If it is a nickname derived from part of the legal name, put it in quotes after the modified part: Alexis "Big Ali" Barton Chen.
• If it is based on the surname, put it before the surname Alexis Barton "Chensterator" Chen.
• If it is a diminutive or abbreviation of part of the legal name, put it in parentheses after the modified part: Alexis (Alex) Barton Chen, Alexis Barton (Bart) Chen, Alexis Barton (Aybee) Chen
• If it is a pseudonynm used in place of the legal name and not used with all or part of the legal name, give it separately and without quotation marks, whether based on the name or not: Alexis Barton Chen, known professionally as DJ ABC, Alexis Barton Chen, later known as Janet Garcia-Chen.
• Do the same for someone conventionally known by their initials and surname only: Alexis Barton Chen, better known as A. B. Chen.
• Do the same for nickname constructions if they are the common name; enclose a nickname but not a simple diminutive or abbreviation in quotation marks: Alexis Barton Chen, better known as "Big Al" Chen, Alexis Barton Chen, best known as Lexi Chen.
• Give epithets (e.g. media labels for then-unknown serial killers) separately and with quotation marks: Alexis Barton Chen, labeled the "Oakland Mangler" in the press before being identified and convicted. Do not capitalize "the" or include it within the quotation marks in such constructions (it is not an integral part of the nickname, and would be dropped in constructions like Alexis B. "Oakland Mangler" Chen).
• Reverse the order and drop the quotation marks if the epithet is the common name: The Hillside Strangler is the media epithet for two men, Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, who were convicted of. [I would prefer to keep the quotation marks, but our extant article at Hillside Strangler doesn't use them, so I'm going with that for now.]

It could be made a bit simpler but perhaps a bit more reader-annoying to drop the "put it ... after the modified part" rules, and always put it before the surname. This would often separate something like "Big Al" from the name it was derived from ("Alexis" in these examples), which could be awkward. "James Bartolomeo (Jim) McDougal" just doesn't work well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The examples regarding the diminutive/abbreviation and initials would not be needed as the article would be named after their stage or common name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the above suggestions are about what to do with the full name in the lead sentence. The title should follow WP:common name. But shouldn't this discussion be at MOS:BLP? I started a discussion like that just yesterday at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#People_commonly_known_by_nicknames and was pointed over here. Darx9url (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to follow the rules…

I move that:

• Lady Gaga be removed as redundant to the Bono example (both have a completely different name than their real one)
• Replace with "Sean Combs (not: Sean John Combs, Puff Daddy, Puffy, Diddy, or P. Diddy)" as example of when not to use fluctuating and/or exhaustive stage names
• Group by name types: shortened names, nicknames, and stage names
• Add "The United Kingdom" as example of dropping commonly used definite articles

Thoughts?    DKqwerty    07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Oppose, a prior criticism was that the list contained too few women;
2. Oppose, a prior criticism was that this list contained already too many WP:PSEUDONYM related examples;
3. Oppose, nicknames and stagenames fall under the same WP:PSEUDONYM guidance (as if WP:NCP has nothing else...); also oppose qualifying "Bill Clinton" as a nickname
4. Oppose, the short list of "common name" examples is not intended to rehash/summarize/dumb down/... subsequent guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so keep Lady Gaga or Madonna and dump Bono. And I don't know of any female artists with as erratic a stage name a Sean Combs. And Combs is an example of when not to use stage name/pseudonym, which is an important distinction. For Bill, the infobox for William qualifies it as a nickname. Not sure I understand your final opposition point. DKqwerty 09:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't even know whether Sean Combs qualifies as a "common name", so shouldn't be included in this list that illustrates the "common name" principle with a few examples. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can be added as prose to name change? My reason for wanting to add it, again, is to clarify that when multiple names may be "common" to different people, name change guide below kicks in.    DKqwerty    09:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This list of examples should be made shorter, not longer with titles and subtitles. People don't need an endless list of examples to understand this concept. I think a single example from each of the current categories should suffice. TheFreeloader (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Article title for Professor DeRose

(A yoga instructor that goes by "DeRose". The history of the article title is Master DeRose, Luis DeRose, Master DeRose, Professor DeRose, Master DeRose, and currently Professor DeRose. There appear to be no independent, reliable, English sources about him. English sources typically are pr pieces such as [21] and [22] (which brings up the issue that for the English encyclopedia, DeRose Method yoga may be more notable than the person). Since DeRose is a disambiguation page, it's unclear whether we should use an honorific (Master DeRose or Professor DeRose), his first name (Luis DeRose), or a description (DeRose (DeRose Method), DeRose (yogi), or DeRose (yoga teacher)) for the article title. Others' help would be greatly appreciated. (Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Change of spelling in an Article title

Is it possible to change the Title of an Article once it has been created?

The article in question was based on the spelling of a medieval word and it now seems that as slightly different spelling is the more commonly used version, so I would like to amend the spelling of the word to reflect the more common usage.

Armond Dean (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Armond Dean: yes, by moving an article to a new title. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:AT have a preference for WP:COMMONNAME in English language sources?

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.

---

Korean League of Legends player Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok is typically referred to as his "real" name (Lee Sang-hyeok/이상혁) in Korean language sources, but in Western media he is usually referred to as his gamer name, "Faker". Since WP:NICKNAME guidelines discourage the use of the current format with the nickname in quotation marks, my question is what should the article title be?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:26, 12 December 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.

Foreign language names of buildings etc

This has probably been covered before, buy I can't seem to find a definite answer. For buildings in non-English-speaking countries, on Wikipedia should its name be translated into English, or should the native name be used? For example, should the article on the Castello di Milazzo in Sicily be named as such, or should it be Milazzo Castle?
Note: This does not apply for places which have a common name in English (eg. Fort Saint Elmo should not be Il-Fortizza ta' Sant'Iermu) or places where the foreign name is commonly used even when writing in English (eg. Torre dello Standardo should not be Tower of the Standard).
Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SMALLDETAILS again

What happened to the discussion to restore this section of the guideline to warning against making inconsistent stylisms the basis of titling? The current examples and text actually encourage a bad practice. And maybe the shortcut can be changed to WP:BEWARESMALLDETAILS? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Re. "What happened to the discussion..." – the discussion quite evidently resulted in the current content of the policy on the topic. Then the discussion was quite evidently archived. Let us know when you would have difficulty finding the most recent discussion on the topic in the archives.
• Re. BEWARESMALLDETAILS shortcut: bad idea, not borne out by the current content of the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nor short.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• User:In ictu oculi, your belief that "that WP:SMALLDETAILS "policy" (?) has been messed around by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of 2 or 3 editors to say the opposite of what most of Wikipedia actually does"[23] is unfounded. The whole point of SMALLDETAILS is that the only reason we need to disambiguate at all on WP is because of the URL technicality preventing us from using the same title for more than one article. But if they can differ sufficiently to create unique URLs, as long as both titles meet WP:CRITERIA, there is no reason to disambiguate further; titles differing by very small detail, even by subtle differences in capitalization, are fine. Now obviously we won't resort to jOhn Smith and JoHn Smith for disambiguation because those are contrived and not based on common usage in reliable sources, but Greatest Hits... So Far!!! and Greatest Hits So Far... are fine because that's how those respective albums are referenced in reliable sources. See: Talk:Greatest_Hits..._So_Far!!!_(Pink_album)#Requested_move_19_January_2016. The number of experienced editors there who don't seem to get this, and/or are willing to dismiss clearly stated policy to favor personal predilections about making titles more "helpful" to users, is alarming. --В²C ☎ 04:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what most experienced editors don't get is the notion that unambiguous titles exist merely because of a "URL technicality". If that technicality were to be removed and all URLs changed to GUIDs, it's still likely that clear and unambiguous titles would be displayed in the article because such titles are helpful and desirable for reasons beyond the merely technical.

This guideline notes that very point in the lede: "It is technically possible, but undesirable for various reasons, to make different pages display with the same title." In other words, we currently have the ability to work around the unique URL requirement and make the displayed titles of two different pages both appear the same, regardless of their unique URLs... but we don't and shouldn't. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Huwmanbeing, there is no doubt that additional descriptive information can be helpful. If we had subtitles we could do it there, but we don't so we do it in the lead sentence of the article. But adding such descriptive information to the title itself for any reason other than overcoming the technical requirement for unique titles is generally not what we do on WP, and I aware of no good reason to ever make an exception to that. I mean, if a good reason applies to any one case, why doesn't it apply to all primary topic titles except perhaps the most notable ones? And, yet, that's not the practice we follow. So, again, why the occasional random exception? --В²C ☎ 21:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"The number of experienced editors there who don't seem to get this" is an indication that most people don't read it as B2C does. That section contains no "clearly stated policy"; rather, it points out that such minimal title distinctions can leave ambiguity, and suggests ways to avoid them, without saying that they are either a good or a bad idea. Personally, I think they're a bad idea, and would support a move to clarify that, but still without prohibiting them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Generally concur with Dicklyon. I think in the Pink album title case, they're distinct enough, and for users who only know the name by what it sounds like, our normal DAB tools will get them from Greatest Hits So Far to the Pink album very quickly. But there are too many cases where the difference is a single character that no one but people intimately familiar with the topic are likely to even notice, and some people will squabble half to death to try to retain an unDABbed title on the basis of SMALLDETAILS even when it's clearly not going to be helpful to readers. I do think we need to clarify and limit the application somehow.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I noted at Talk:Drug and Alcohol Dependence (journal), I think there are parts of this policy documenting minority views and a false consensus.

"experienced editors there who don't seem to get this" demonstrates that policy here is failing to well describe accepted practice.

This should be alarming to anyone who takes policy pages seriously.

I suggest changing: "small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics" to "small details are usually may be sufficient to distinguish topics".

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I support that change. Be aware that you said "Good edit" when Francis proposed the current wording last August. But it's not too late to tune it a bit. There was clearly no consensus to make it this strong. Dicklyon (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

His edit to the policy, I thought it was a good edit. The previous version was worse. Incremental improvements are a good idea, his notion that future improvements need increasingly bigger bureaucratic obstacles overcome is bad. On the precise wording "are usually" vs "may be", I think the evidence has changed; there has been some backlash against the overly strong wording.

Changing "are usually" to "may be" is very conservative. "are usually" asserts a fact in dispute, evidently. Even if it is true, "may be" is still true. Francis exaggerates to call it a "rewrite". If he gets his way in blocking this change, it a step further in the direction of having policy written in stone.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this race. I do think wider community reaction at Talk:Drug and Alcohol Dependence (journal) is very interesting. Either, policy has overreached, or respected editors need education. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I, for one, oppose the rewrite proposed by SmokeyJoe. Further, the last substantial rewrite of WP:SMALLDETAILS was widely discussed, with dozens of participants in the discussion (it even included an RfC regarding one of the side-aspects of the rewrite) – so, to make it clear: if that was a "local" consensus, it can only be undone by an even less "local" consensus, which would mean at least: RfC.

The current wording is adequate, while indeed, most of the time, when all other WP:CRITERIA are equally satisfied by both alternative versions of the name, and the only difference is made by WP:CONCISE, it is usually the shorter version that is used as article title. Case in point: Gangsta., which set off the previous rewrite.

The proposed rewrite also simplifies and draws the attention away from the considerations and tools the policy offers to address SMALLDETAILS issues (swift navigation, disambiguation tools, WP:CRITERIA,...)

My over-all goal with the previous rewrite was to come to a situation where a SMALLDETAILS issue wouldn't pop up on this policy talk page every once and awhile. Mission not accomplished, but at least it took somewhat longer than the previous time such issue popped up here. The proposed rewrite has IMHO however less chance of leading to a situation where such issues would pop up here less often, as it is clear by now that the policy formulation isn't the problem so much, as people wanting to squeeze it in a hard and fast rule (overstepping the swift navigation, disambiguation tools, WP:CRITERIA, etc recommendations), and will persist in "reading it the way they want it to sound" and/or "the way it should sound". This will not be helped by making the policy even more vaguish, as far as my assessment of the situation goes.

So I'd like the posters above that are all so convinced that they know what the policy "wants" or "needs" to say, (In ictu oculi, Born2cycle, SmokeyJoe, Dicklyon) to take a step back and approach such issues the way it is recommended by the policy: what works best for a swift navigation? are all useful disambiguation techniques in place (without needing to overburdon article hatnotes or to create extraneous disambiguation pages, etc)? Which page name is over-all closest to all involved WP:CRITERIA? What is the best way to avoid (pseudo-)ambiguity? Which article title conforms best to the WP:TITLETM recommendations (if these are applicable)? Then, when a WP:RM is in progress, base your opinion on that, without misquoting the actual policy during such RM proceedings, and also: without steering for a policy rewrite in the midst of such proceedings in order to favour your !vote in the RM. I have no idea which way the currently ongoing Drug and Alcohol Dependence (journal) and Greatest Hits... So Far!!! (Pink album) RMs will go, but a rewrite of the policy to favour one or the other side during these proceedings will not be effectuated. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am confident in my observation that the policy reads overly strongly. Policy should not overstate community consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Francis, it was NOT extensively discussed. You proposed it with "I'd replace that by something in this vein:..." and then got three quick OKs, and some discussion of a different sentence than the one we're looking at now. As far as I can find, your phrase "usually sufficient" was never mentioned before or after your proposal. Now, it is clear that it needs a tuneup, so let's discuss SmokeyJoe's minor tweak to correct the overreach. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon, "many" in this case is far from "most". While many experienced editors don't seem to get it, most do. The recent results at Talk:Woman_in_the_Dunes#Requested_move_5_January_2016 exemplify this. --В²C ☎ 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So a discussion about a word exemplifies a policy about capitalization or a dot as title differences? Hmm... Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When the word is a leading "the" it's same underlying issue: "small details". --В²C ☎ 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think maybe I see a split between "serious" topics and fiction/pop culture. People have little difficulty applying DIFFCAPS to the fiction Woman in the Dunes, but do have troublue with the academic journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence. On Jenk's "regarding SJ's claim that "Titling aficionados support DIFFCAPS", I don't think that is the case. On the contrary, it seems to be a divisive issue among RM/WT:AT regulars ..." I think that is right, but it could be good to survey more widely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think you'll find too many leaning one way with one category and the other way with the other category. In other words, it's more of a matter of who happens to show up than what the issue is in terms of which way it's going to go, which is pretty lame. --В²C ☎ 02:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think I notice that no one objects to DIFFCAPS for fiction or for popular culture topics (that's leaving aside terminal periods etc), and that objections appear sometimes for serious topics. There is no suggestion of the same people expressing different opinions for different cases. I think it is a factor of motivation to engage in what many consider a trivial matter. I think, DIFFCAPS is a sound editorial decision, and the answer is better explanation at the Policy section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You mean does anyone object to a different shortcut to the same fuzzy section? Probably not. But if you mean does anyone object to distinguishing article titles by case alone, then yes, I find that to be a really bad idea, especially since we don't even have universal adherence to the basic style rule of caps in titles, that we don't use caps unnecessarily. That would seem to be the minimum prerequisite for using case to differentiate topics. But I still wouldn't like it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I have more problem with excessive shouty shortcuts plastered all over the policy, and with the acceptance of fuzziness. Fuzziness of language makes for difficult reading for the newcomers, who should be assumed to be the main audience. The bold blue shouty ONEWORDS have led to Wikipedians adopting the SHORTCUTS as jargon, with excessive influence from the meaning of the shortcut as a word, and disconnection with what the linked section actually says. As with all jargon, it serves to increase barriers to newcomers. I don't object to shortcuts, I object to likbox practice of attention-grabbing linkboxes all down the right of every page, using a shortcut and thus a url that uses the shouty one word instead of the section heading. This is not particular a problem with this policy, the practice being prolific all over project space, and it is certainly a problem with this policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • "we don't even have universal adherence to the basic style rule of caps in titles, that we don't use caps unnecessarily". I thought we did, allowing for rare and weird exceptions. Only composition titles are allowed title case, I thought? --05:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Well, yes, in theory. In practice it's often very hard to talk specialist editors out of their caps. Review Halley's Comet for example. Why, if sources only cap it half the time, even in astro pubs, do we decide caps are necessary on such things? Or Civil Rights Movement, or Cuban Missile Crisis? More recently, the mess around universe and solar system. Lots more. If we want caps to signal an important difference, we need to get those straight first. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
            • On all of these, I read it as debatable whether the title is descriptive or has become a proper name. Descriptive titles sometimes transition to proper names. Apparently, important things transition earlier, and earlier than some are comfortable with. Referring to sources can be messy as sources may be old, may like an old style, or may adopt a perverse or lax house style. I think the conundrum, of when does a descriptive title become a proper name, can and should be referred to another subcommittee. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
              • I don't mean to try to settle those here. My point is just that when capitalization differences are so fluid, it's nuts to count on them to distinguish topics. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
                • I don't get your point. Unless there are multiple uses of the name, and we have titles using the name distinguished by caps, references to the name will end up on the page anyway. So why do we need to "have universal adherence to the basic style rule of caps in titles" in order to use case to differentiate topics? I mean, obviously we would need adherence in a situation where we're using case to differentiate topics, but why does it matter in the vast majority of cases where that's not the situation? --В²C ☎ 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • Well, either case is meaningful or it's not, ideally. We are far from that ideal, but have no consensus to move the way you suggest. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • I'm not suggesting moving any direction. The status quo is quite reasonable and consistent with longstanding WP practice, policies and guidelines - in which we distinguish titles by caps where reliable sources distinguish by caps. Moving away from that is what you appear to support, for stated reasons like we must have "universal adherence ..." that don't make sense to me. --В²C ☎ 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Not going to wade through all of this. I support changing "small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics" to "small details may be sufficient to distinguish topics", as actually reflective of current WP:RM practice and consensus, which has shifted over time on this matter. All WP:POLICY is an experiment, and we adjust it based on the results over time. I disagree strongly with the idea that some kind of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS conspiracy is why the wording here doesn't perfectly agree with WP-wide consensus on one minor point. It's not plausible, because of the extent of this policy's and MoS's watchlisting. Not every flaw is obviously because someone's unreasonably pushing a viewpoint. Anyway, it's become clear that search engines generally do not distinguish our articles by case (which they normalize) or punctuation (which they strip), so we should include that point in particular, and stop advertising the WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:DIFFPUNCT shortcuts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Use English and Cars

Does WP:UE apply to the naming of cars? see Talk:Lada Riva -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We should use the name most commonly used in reliable English sources to refer to the car. --В²C ☎ 22:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, people who understand AT (especially WP:COMMONNAME), the NC guidelines (especially WP:USEENGLISH), WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, WP:PROJPAGE, and the principle that the title needs to cover the content, not one subset of the content, should probably give some input into Talk:Lada_Riva#Requested move 26 January 2016.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) is a guideline which needs some TLC. I have just removes some of the more outlandish statements from it eg "Articles not in compliance with these guidelines will be renamed". It is mainly describing how to put descriptive titles together, but in a very prescriptive way, which is not necessarily in harmony with other guidance. For example it suggests that when disambiguating with a year, rather than placing the year in brackets at the end, the year should come before the rest of the description. I think a few more eyes on the guideline might help. -- PBS (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• There is some related guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events (which has, I hope, less problems). Best to leave a note on both naming conventions' talk pages if you want to rewrite the guidance and have the discussion on this WT:AT talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We should probably look around for additional WP:PROJPAGEs that aren't really guidelines and aren't consonant with WP:POLICY. The cars-related RM mentioned above illustrates why.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The wording "a significant majority of sources written after the name change"

PBS, regarding this, it needs a tweak. I think the reason that Blueboar added "a significant majority" is because sources are very likely to continue using both the old and new name; rarely is the new name used exclusively. I also think that's why this bit was in the policy. Also see this discussion I had with Prayer for the wild at heart at Talk:Angelina Jolie about what "routinely" is supposed to mean and the question of when to retitle an article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"significant majority" is similar to "overwhelmingly known" a hurdle we used for many years in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) for the cognomens before the introduction into this policy of reliable sources. This was to stop the advise being used to moves to "Richard the Lionheart", "Bloody Mary" etc, based usage in all sources not just reliable ones. The wording was use because with the exception of "Alfred the Great" and a few others it was too high a hurdle for most cognomens. Once we went over to reliable sources, this problem evaporated as reliable sources tend to use the more usual Richard I, Mary I etc. As the wording "significant majority" has not been used before or name change in this policy (I know as I introduced the concept into this policy), this is a significant change and I do not think it is justified given the hurdle that already exist: moves to the new title have to have a consensus while, no consensus will leave the article at the title it has.

As to the bracketed text I removed I think it was confusing as an article can only have one title. If you wish to discuss it further lets discuss in in relation to the change of name from Saint Petersburg --> Petrograd --> Leningrad --> Saint Petersburg and how it helped deciding on the article title. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My goal was to put dealing with name changes firmly in line with WP:COMMONNAME. When the subject of an article undergoes a name change, we should not immediately rush to Wikipedia and change our article title to match the new name... instead we should wait to see if sources (written after the name change is announced) actually accept (ie use) the new name. In many cases, this will happen fairly quickly (the adoption of Papal names is a good example)... but in other cases it takes a bit of time for sources to reflect the change. And in relatively rare cases, the sources never reflect the change (essentially rejecting the "new" name). I also wanted to add something to the policy that encouraged having patience when it comes to name changes. something to say: "wait... until the new name becomes COMMONLY USED." Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that "overwhelmingly known" fits well with common name. For example Burma would still be at Burma if that was the criteria to use. However, I have pondered for some time adding wording for reliable third party sources, because in many cases the publicity mill for an entity changing name may give a false impression of as ground swell of usage for the new name, which is then not picked up by disinterested reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the shift from Burma --> Myanmar is a perfect example of an article where we didn't accept the change change until overwhelming source usage of the new name indicated we should do so. That article was entitled Burma for years... and consensus resisted multiple attempts to change it. The title did not change to Myanmar until last summer (2015) - when a re-examination of sources (finally) showed that modern sources were overwhelmingly using "Myanmar" (and only using "Burma" in a historical context). Another example of this was the shift from Bombay to Mumbai.... we waited years to make that change as well. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is still not overwhelmingly, for example both American state department,[24] and the British foreign office sites still use Burma.[25]. It is for examples like this that there is no need to overemphasize with "overwhelmingly" when the common name criteria is adequate. -- PBS (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was that the usage of Myanmar is now overwhelming. Sure, there are some holdouts who still use Burma... But not many. Remember that "overwhelming" does not require unanimity. Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be the common name, but I do not think one can argue that it is "overwhelming" when the majority of the governments of the Anglosphere are still using Burma, (America, Australia, Britain, and Canada). Ireland have gone for the solution of stroke city: Myanmar/Burma. In New Zealand and they have oscillated, under Helen Clark, NZ switched to Myanmar, but when John Key became Prime Minimiser the NZ foreign office at first went back to Burma and then switched back to Myanmar. PBS (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that President Obama (and Hillary Clinton, back when she was Sect. of State) use Myanmar - I suspect the US may have changed its "official" usage... And that the website you point us to is simply out of date. Certainly the news media in the anglosphere uses Myanmar almost exclusively. I would say the shift is overwhelming... but perhaps you simply have a different conception of what constitutes "overwhelming" than I do. Blueboar (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is made. Overwhelming is not a hurdle that was in this policy before your change of words, and that it is an unfamiliar concept in this policy over which disagreements will be no less than with WP:UCRN. WP:UCRN has the advantage that most editors who participate in page move are familiar with it, something that is not true with "Overwhelming". -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Overwhelmingly used in RS" should not be confusing in any way (and can be spelled out to not be, if there's an indication people will wikilawyer about it). WP does sometimes want a hurdle that high, most often a) when using the name will be controversial for some reason (usually socio-political offensiveness to some sector), or b) it conflicts with some other policy or guideline (including within WP:AT, or in MoS which is where the style considerations in AT come from). This is basically the same rule given in longer wording at MOS:TM: "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (to allow for Deadmau5 and iPod, but not "macy^★s" or "Se7en"; the very phrase "overwhelmingly used" is common in discussions about the difference between the first class and the second). The wording could be normalized between the two, and doing so would probably have it become standard wording for any similar situations. And there are others, such as using "British Isles" in a way that includes Ireland; nationalist Irish really, really hate that, but WP does it anyway, because the RS do it overwhelmingly, not just by a 1% majority. Another is occasionally permitting "rare and weird exceptions" (as someone put it in the thread below) to MOS:CAPS when it comes to capitalization in titles of works.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• See also the thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC for multiple letter capitalisations in the MoS" (and earlier Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Extending the "one-letter lowercase prefix" rule to multiple-letter prefixes; also the related but now closed DRN thread Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 131#Talk:tvOS), which raise the "overwhelming use in sources" issue more narrowly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying WP:COMMONNAME

We need to do something to make it even clearer that WP:COMMONNAME (WP:UCRN) applies to article titles only, and names (e.g. it's Alien 3, not Alien Three or Alien III), and does not cover typographic stylization (Alien³ vs. Alien 3), which is a MOS:TM matter. It is not enough that this page is called "Article titles". Virtually every discussion about in-paragraph usage of stylized trademarks has multiple respondents citing WP:COMMONNAME in favor of things like Alien³, because they don't remember that it's part of WP:AT and that AT is a titles policy. Day in, day out, year after year, all of these discussions get bogged down in trying to get editors to understand that the two documents cover different things, and have different rationales, and in particular that COMMONNAME does not apply to typography in running prose. And many simply will not believe COMMONNAME doesn't regulate article content, simply because COMMONNAME itself doesn't spell that out, right there in its section, and they believe "policy trumps guidelines", which translates into "my misunderstanding of policy trumps your explanation of the relationship between that policy and these guidelines because yours has something to do with guidelines to shut up". I cannot even begin to estimate the amount of editorial productivity flushed down the toilet because of circular "debates" of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look into the history of UCRN you will discover that (historically) the concept has never been limited to just article titles. The idea of deferring to the most commonly used name is a concept that dates back to when the page was our general Naming Convention guideline... ie before we "narrowed" the scope to titles.

Given this history... I don't think it is WP:AT that needs amendment... I think MOS:TM does. It needs to better acknowledge that the concept behind COMMONNAME has strong concensus... and tell editors that when there is a dispute over style choices, the text should use the style formatting most commonly used in sources (when possible). Call it COMMONSTYLE if you want.

That said, if we do adopt a style analog to COMMONNAME, we should also include a style analog to WP:OFFICIALNAME (call that OFFICIALSTYLE). It does not matter how "official" a style might be... we don't use it unless the majority of sources that write about the topic do so as well. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Blueboar, and suggest that the concept of WP:COMMONNAME, referring to things as they are referred to in reliable sources, is in excellent keeping with the principles of Wikipedia, particularly in that Wikipedia follows its sources. The MOS:TM, where it sets rules that are at odds with reflecting sources, needs softening. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's try this again. John Doe is a name. COMMONNAME tells us whether that's the correct name, vs. J. M. Doe, or Janet Doe, or John Florbelheimer-Sanchez. Once in a blue moon, we even accept something with simple, transparent substitutions, e.g. J0hn Do3, or simple case changes, e.g. john doe, or (really rarely) extraneous punctuation, as in John Doe!, as a name, iff the whole rest of the world does (i.e. the stylization has transitioned from style on a name to a actual, unitary proper name in the philosophy sense, with the style an intrinsic part of virtually all public perception of the name. J0^hN d•3!!! is not a name, it is a stylization of a name, and even if John Doe spends $57 billion promoting that as his real name, down to every style detail, no one in the world, much less WP, should take that seriously for five seconds, other than the designers paid to work on his logo. If this seems like a silly example, strip out every stylization except one, other than the non-confusing substitutions – pick one of: super script, italics, jumbling the case inconsistently, font face, color, use of dingbats, excessive extraneous punctuation, or underlining – and you'll see that the result would still be the same: WP would never and should not accept that as part of the name, as such, except we'd entertain some normal non-alphanumerics that are conventional in typography if they appeared in the title of a published work and RS accepted them as part of the formal title. We'd also accept superscripting or subscripting if it were semantic and not decorative (e.g. a company pronounced "Ideas Squared" iff they were virtually always referred to as "Ideas³" even in their corporate documentation, in press, etc., called "Ideas Squared" in rudimentary ASCII, and never called "Ideas Three"). All the rest of the stylized John Doe example is not part of the name, in any conceptualization anyone care about outside a philosophy class.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The supermajority required at MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS is actually the same standard as that required by WP:COMMONNAME, anyway: "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above." People just tend not to notice that part because of where it's placed in the section. I'm also going to fix the "obvious term that is obviously" redundancy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  I fixed those and some other problems in that section [26] (e.g. WP:BEANS encouragement of dispute, and some additional redundancies, as well as cherry-picking two of the criteria to highlight in that section for no reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:43rd Canadian federal election#Requested move 9 February 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: This isn't a wikiproject, and Canadian federal elections aren't relevant to this policypage. Is there something particular about this RM that raises AT interpretation problems?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the question for this page is whether WP:COMMONNAME applies or not... I don't think it does. Both of the choices are descriptive in nature .. and neither has the routine level of usage in sources to indicate that the description has evolved into a proper name for the event). Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue that is raised here is application of naming conventions and precedent. AusLondonder (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Subtitles naming conventions location

Why is the subtitles naming convention in the books guideline rather than the main guideline? My understanding is that it applies to all forms of media with subtitles, as it follows from the five naming criteria points. czar 16:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Re. "why" – because I put it there many, many years ago. As far as I can remember WP:CRITERIA wasn't even developed at the time ("common name" being the single ruling paradigm before the five criteria). Then when other naming conventions on other types of creative works started (or continued) developing, instead of developing something parallel to the book subtitles guidance, they simply referred to it. Note that at the time WP:AT (under a different name: it was then called "naming conventions") was guideline, not policy. So there are some questions if we're thinking about importing subtitles guidance to WP:AT:
  • is this something that needs to be mentioned at policy level, or does guideline level work fine?
  • how much of this guidance that is tied to specific media (e.g. book-related examples) would we keep in subsidiary naming conventions guidelines?
  • where do we need pointers to the "root" guidance on subtitles? E.g. currently WP:AT contains two pointers to WP:SUBTITLES: that situation might need to be reviewed when the "root" guidance on subtitles is in WP:AT itself.
  • which other subsidiary naming conventions are affected by this, and how (e.g. pointers would need to be directed elsewhere, are examples specific for that type of works needed?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

My concern is mainly that editors might think it only applies to books. I was more interested in adding a sentence or two to AT about subtitles vis-à-vis "common name" (this can be linked to the books NC). czar 17:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

As written it only applies to books. It doesn't apply to, for instance, embroideries, otherwise we'd reformat the parenthetical subtitle of Magna Carta (An Embroidery) to Magna Carta: An Embroidery, because for books the guideline is to separate the title from the subtitle by a colon and a space. So I'd keep it at guideline level and leave it to the authors of the topic-specific naming conventions guidelines whether they write a specific subtitles guideline, adopt something similar to what is in WP:SUBTITLES, or just refer to it from the other naming convention (when subtitles are an issue in the field of that topic, which would not be the case for most topics). Nothing to be done here at policy level I'm afraid, and as said there are already two places in the policy that link to the WP:SUBTITLES guideline (so people can surely find it). I don't think we need a third link from yet another section of the policy to the same guidance, that surely isn't applicable over-all to all kinds of topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As written it only applies to books. That's not what the first sentence says:

Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per WP:CONCISE.

czar 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As repeated (for the third time now), some authors of related naming conventions chose to simply refer to the guidance on subtitles in the Books naming convention. I'm OK with that. That doesn't mean that AT (a policy, thus about universally applicable principles) should posit it as applying everywhere, and even less should start naming domains where it applies and where it doesn't apply (while it only applies to a limited set of domains). Yes we could forever continue to ram everything that can be said about article titling in one page again (as it was in prehistoric days), then come to the realisation it is unworkable and start spinning out in topic-specific guidelines again. There are only three naming conventions affected: that on film & TV, and the one on video games. So I assume, e.g., that the naming conventions governing video games make a link to WP:SUBTITLES somewhere. If it doesn't, WP:AT isn't the place to solve that, but the video games naming conventions. We can't put everything that only applies to a handful of topic-specific naming conventions, or less, in the main policy, and even less in three different places in that policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So instead we'll have three different versions of the same idea across each type of naming conventions? Doesn't make sense to me.  czar 09:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Subtitles proposal

Proposed addition to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Conciseness:

Article titles usually omit the subject's subtitle.
ALT: Titles for articles about books, film, and other media usually do not include their subtitles.
— Paraphrased from WP:SUBTITLES, which refers to WP:CONCISE

• The main concern above was that this would only apply in three domains rather than across Wikipedia. My question is whether there any domains in which this would not apply? (An advertisement with a subtitle? An artwork?) The proposed text would appear to be a natural and useful clarification of the section in those situations. Subtitles aren't some edge case—they're a major facet of titling. Open to friendly amendments. czar 09:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Nah, oppose on several levels, as explained above. Most "subjects" don't have a "subtitle", so "Article titles usually omit the subject's subtitle" is gibberisch for most subjects; also, what would that add that isn't already covered by the commonname principle? – probably it would only add confusion; the ALT formulation is even worse: only shows how limited the applicability is (no "wikipedia-wide" policy matter, there's already too much detaillistic cruft on the page, so let's rather cut some out, than add more); also the ALT formulation would, as a policy rule, too easily be seen as overruling the guidelines that recommend to use subtitles in certain cases, and how to format them when used.

In general, WP:CRITERIA and the WP:COMMONNAME principle handle very well when to include a subtitle in an article title, and when not to, any detaillistic rule rather confuses than enhances the general principles. To sum up: please no subtitle rules at policy level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about various "naming conventions" pages

This page was renamed to "Article titles" from "Naming conventions" years ago, but we've still got a bunch of pages titled "Naming conventions (xxxx)". I think this situation is unnecessarily confusing, and that it is about time that the naming conventions pages were brought into line with the main policy. Would anyone be opposed to moving all the pages in the relevant category to either Wikipedia:Article titles/xxxx or Wikipedia:Article titles (xxxx)? As it stands, the link between this policy and its subpages is not clear unless one knows the history of the page move, which I don't think is appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 06:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We discussed this idea back when we renamed this page, but rejected it. The problem is that the various Naming Conventions are not really "sub-pages" of WP:AT. While they do discuss article titles, most of them discuss a lot more than article titles. Most of them also discuss which names to use in the body of an article's text (and in which contexts to use which names). They discuss issues such as the presentation of alternative names; the use of names in historical contexts; and a host of other "name related issues". If we were to rename all these guidelines, a more accurate (but less concise) title would be: WP:Conventions regarding names (xxx).

That said, I would agree that the various Naming Conventions do need to be periodically reviewed - and if a NC page actually contradicts something that is said at WP:AT, then we would need to discuss the contradiction and bring the two pages back into sync (guideline pages should augment policy pages, not contradict them). Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

They are indeed subpages of AT. There is no doubt that the pages emerged as subpages of this page, and served to clarify how to name articles on Wikipedia. Regardless, I can understand that some of these pages have been expanded because of the stupidity of not defining the link to AT post-move. Regardless, as a compromise, I would proposed that we move only those that deal only with broad matters regarding article titles. These would be the following:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)

As of now, the locations of these pages are not intuitive. They are clearly subpages of this page, but got left behind because of a poorly thought out move of this page. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... now that you point to the specific NC pages you are concerned with, I do have to say that we have not been talking about the same thing. I have been talking of pages like WP:Naming conventions (people) and WP:Naming conventions (comics) and WP:Naming conventions (music)... ie topic focused guidelines dealing with the presentation of names (in both titles and text). I have to agree that the four pages you link to above don't fit that (normal) mold. They are really alternative style guidelines (focused on article titles) and not "conventions regarding names."

As such, I would suggest that they be merged with appropriate MOS pages that deal with similar issues (for example, NCCAPS should be merged with MOS:CAPS). Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thinking further on this, I think we need a community wide consensus on what to do with these pages. It isn't a good idea to have two competing guidelines dealing with the same issues (such as MOS:CAPS and NCCAPS)... that just ends up causing conflicts. I am going to raise them at the Village Pump. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, the pages I've linked have always dealt with article titles, and have always been subsidiaries of this page. The only reason they are not marked as such is because of a failure to move them when the move of this page happened. A move to align them with this page would be mere housekeeping, and would not change the status quo in any way. It would simply make the relationship between these pages more clear. The fact that you were not aware of these pages is a good example of why the present situation does not work. These are in no way "alternative" style guidelines. They are merely expansions on individual sections at WP:AT, formerly WP:NC, and continue to be linked from in the relevant WP:AT sections. MOS:CAPS does not deal with article titles, and the MoS in general is not the place to turn to for guidelines on article titles, though some specific pieces of guidance there might apply. Notice that at the top of MOS:CAPS there is a hatnote that says "For the style guideline on capitalization in article titles, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)". RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Woops, sorry if I acted too quickly, but I have already raised the issue at the pump (see: WP:VPP#Guideline duplication (the potential for conflict)). I have focused that discussion on the most obvious potential for conflict (the two capitalization pages)... suggest we continue the discussion there for now. We can always resume here once we see what the community at the pump thinks. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've closed that thread and provided a link here, as it is a duplicate of an already existing discussion. It is wrong to discuss the same thing in multiple places. Regardless, if you consider WP:NCCAPS to be a duplicate of MOS:CAPS, then WP:AT is a duplicate of WP:MOS. it is clear that you don't understand the division between these two. AT and NC pages deal with article titles only, whereas the MoS deals with content. This division has always existed, and should be retained. If it is to be removed, then the AT series of pages needs to merged into the MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem with the close at VPP... I only opened a discussion there because my concern involved more than one guideline page and I figured that was a more appropriate venue to discuss multiple guidelines at the same time. We can discuss here instead. That comment out of the way... It will probably help to discuss each of these NC pages on their own... I will start with NCCaps

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The main reasons we have all these problematic page conflicts are:

1. Wikiprojects pushing their WP:PROJPAGEs as "guidelines" without a detailed analysis by the community of where they are liable to introduce conflicts and other unnecessary problems. There is often a lot of WP:SSF at work in them. Many if not most should probably be classified as PROJPAGE essays again (same goes for some topical MoS subpages).
2. Territorialism between AT and MOS. The main vector of this appears to be people who hate this or that nitpick in MOS, and are convinced they can use AT's {{Policy}} label to overthrow their MOS nitpick, if only they can dig up enough sources. (They're wrong, because WP:COMMONNAME and its simple-majority-use-in-reliable-sources pertains to the content of the name (what it is vs. other names, not how its styled). The barrier for entry of a weird stylization at MoS much higher – overwhelming use in reliable sources (though it's phrased different ways and needs to be normalized, at MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS and probably elsewhere). The different: WP:COMMONNAME tells whether a certain personage's common name in "Deadmaus" (stylized "Deadmau5") or "Dead Mouse" or "Deceased Rodent", whether it's "Pink" (stylized "P!nk") or "Pynk" or "LightRed". These are content facts. MOS tells us whether to accept an unusual stylization or not, and the answer is almost always "no"; "Deadmau5" and "iPod" are rare exceptions (based on nearly zero sources using the plan-English style), as Pink (singer) and Time (magazine) and a zillion other articles without silly stylizations in title or prose clearly demonstrate.
3. Just the palimpsestuous nature of the medium. Because anyone can edit, and there's lots of pages, and plenty of room for conceptual overlap, scope creep is inevitable and has to be pruned from time to time. I did a whole bunch of that in 2014, after discovering that the various NC and MOS and wikiproject pages on various organisms were all contradicting each other on even really basic things, like whether to capitalize the common names of species. It took a long time and lot of drama to resolve it, but we did (aside from the domestic breeds question), and life goes on. There need not be any conflict between AT and MOS, some just arises now and again because of these factors (and maybe some additional ones).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• I violently disagree with the idea that the NC pages should be moved to be subpages of the AT policy. That would directly import various guidelines, and various faux guidelines (wikiproject WP:PROJPAGE essays someone slapped a {{Guideline}} onto when no was looking) into policy itself. It would be bedlam. Policies exist to codify as fairly strict rules core matters of Wikipedia values, stability, and fundamental operating procedures. Guidelines exists to recommend what the community consensus is (among editors who care about whatever the guideline is about) on best practices in various applied situations, with plenty of wiggle room in most cases. There are real reasons that things like even WP:MOS, WP:N, WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:AADD, upon which we rely day in and day out, are not policies, and some are not even guidelines because their applicability is too variable or subjective. All the NC pages (and topical MOS sub-pages on Japan or a sport or whatever) are guidelines (at best) for the same reasons. AT is a policy because it governs a core, WP-universal process, and it does not delve into topical rule-making and other nitpicks for the very reason that it is an overarching policy structure vs. a contextual application. It would "merge the cart with the horse", as it were, to have policy be its own applications at the same time. To use a governance metaphor: Policies are like a constitution and its amendments, plus other founding documents and principles, including (in the case of policies we "inherited" from WP:OFFICE for external legal reasons) ratified treaties; guidelines are like statutes and regulations built upon and interpreting that overall rule-system framework; the consensus decisions we make, on the fly or in formal venues, are our caselaw; and essays are akin to dicta, court procedures, law review articles, party platforms, and other influences upon the system. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NCCaps (and MOS:CAPS)

OK... let me start this discussion by noting the first sentence of the second paragraph of NCCaps... "This convention often also applies within the article body"... I think that sentence refutes RGloucester's argument that NCCaps is only about article titles (while MOS:CAPS is about article text). It is fairly clear to me that we do actually have two guidelines dealing with capitalization... and that both deal with the issue in both title and text. I think that is a ridiculous situation.
Now... a question... does NCCaps currently conflict with MOS:CAPS? I think there is a potential for it, but I would like to know if that potential has been realized or not. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

NCCAPS deals with article titles. Some of what is contained within may apply to the article body, but that doesn't mean that the guideline itself isn't about article titles. It has always done, since it was first created. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that all NCCaps needs to say is to use sentence case for titles. The MOS covers the details about when to capitalize in a sentence, and titles should do the same. But then a lot of topic-specific guidelines came about under naming conventions, probably because the discussions that get advertised are the requested moves, which are about titles. Pretty silly that is has gone on this way for so long. Should we fix it? Step one would be for everyone to agree to stop calling these conventions "policy". Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The subsidiary pages of the former WP:Naming conventions, i.e. WP:AT, have always been guidelines, not policies. Either way, something needs to be done here. Either we have a ton of duplicate guidance, or we have pages under strange titles that were made obsolete years ago, or we have useful information hidden away where no one can find it, but in any case we have a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 06:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The obvious solution is tho move the style-related matters into MOS where they belong. PS: The reason that NC guildeline end up affecting article content ("applies within" is activistic, territorialist nonsense, and wording like this is the main reason anyone is ever confused about this stuff) is because MoS encourages using the same style in the body as in the the title, and – when this is all done properly, and people don't try to apply style rules to content or vice versa – the named arrived at by AT/NC will already comply with MOS to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NCTHE

Simple question on this one... Why isn't it an MOS guideline? Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it deals with article titles only, and has always been a subsidiary of WP:AT. MoS does not deal with article titles. RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not really accurate in a particular sense, though. WP:AT and the various NC pages frequently cross-reference MOS. MOS doesn't set anything that is particularly and peculiarly about article titles, and sometimes title policy concerns can override an MOS one, because of the policy vs. guideline natures of the documents, but this is rare. (Most of the time someone thinks they detect a conflict between AT/NC and MOS, they're not reasoning through the WP:POLICY material properly, and either trying impose a content rule on style or a style rule on content. But most of MOS that could be applied to titles is. As someone noted above, AT does sometimes affect the names in the content, but it's not because AT is dictating the content style, it's because MOS avoid conflicting with the title style (cause and effect run the opposite of how some have been perceiving it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The idea of merging AT into MOS

RGloucester above mentioned this, but responding to it where he posted it would disrupt the ongoing thread there, so I'll break it off.

It would be feasible to merge AT and certain core aspects of MOS into a WP style policy with a broader scope than title. It would need a distinct name (perhaps Manual of Style itself) that distinguished it from MoS sub-guidelines (which could be renamed, e.g. "style sheets") and the NC guidelines. There are very few MoS items that I think would rise to policy level; those that might are broad principles, not nit-picky line items. WP:PMC (principle of minimal change, i.e. don't monkey with quotations any more than necessary) is an obvious one. Some of them are in MoS subpages: We have (in regular prose) two and only two acceptable date formats (30 January 2016, and January 30, 2016), per MOS:NUM; history has demonstrated that people are more apt to get into style conflict over date formatting than anything else, if allowed to do so. Certain article sections go in a particular order, per MOS:LAYOUT, and we do in fact enforce this. Leads should be summaries not teasers or one-liner defnitions, per MOS:LEAD, and we try to enforce that as well. There's probably only 10-20 MOS principles that are truly policy-level. All the rest is applied best practices that produce a consistent and (when the content is good) professional quality product, but have little to do with whether the project will function well, which is where policy territory is.

Historically, people have flipped out at the mention of such an idea of merging AT into MoS or making any of MoS into a policy, but who knows. Consensus can change, as we say.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with the relevant naming conventions pages, specifically the ones I mentioned above that are not the type of wikiproject essays that you've talked about. These are:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)

If we start here, is there anything preventing us from merging them into the MoS? RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not that I can see. And the last of those is obviously not policy material, but just descriptive of limitations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, seems too much a solution in search of a problem to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion. Someone may propose something specific later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is clear. At present, the above mentioned pages have been orphaned from WP:AT, the former WP:NC, and hence are not accessible. This is not an ideal situation. Do you have a proposed solution? RGloucester — ☎ 23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

? None of them have been orphaned from WP:AT. There is no problem, at least not the one you describe, so running to a solution without providing a problem that needs to be solved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

They have indeed been orphaned from AT. They were formerly subpages of this page, but were left behind when this page was moved to Wikipedia:Article titles from Wikipedia:Naming conventions. They are presently in limbo, making their guidance inaccessible. RGloucester — ☎ 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Inaccessible? I just tried 'What links here' on WP:THE and there are 700+ pages linking to it, so editors have no trouble finding it and adding a link to it when needed. I don’t see how there location makes any difference to this; there is no easy way to list the subpages of a page, so such pages will primarily be found by links, in discussions, from related pages, in indexes. With many editors linking to and presumably remembering them at their current address moving them will just cause problems for no real benefit. So oppose--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, "orphaned from AT" is nonsense. There is no problem to solve. Really, certainly not the one you mention. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeating that problems don't exist when people are clearly identifying problems isn't an argument. Whether RG used the best phrasing in addressing one particular problem has little to do with whether there's a real problem there, and nothing at all to do with the distinct problems identified by others.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Knee jerk reaction is to flip out. However, agree that there is a strong case that something needs doing. There is a lot of good stuff in the MOS, a lot of merit to agreeing to its application, but getting there is somewhat complex. It is hard to put my finger on what exactly is the problem.

One problem with the MOS is its style of asserting rules by fiat. In that respect, it is incompatible with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. It also has some bumps that undermine its credibility. Some examples: The insistence on a hard line for capitalisation between 3 letter prepositions and 4 letter prepositions, an invented insistence that regularly leads to morally affronted battles when the MOS says to do something at odds with both sources and the generally understood principle that in composition title case, important words are capitalised. Another is the insistence that verbs are capitalised in titles, without reference to the exceptions for unimportant verbs, Copula (linguistics) or linking verbs. A Boy Was Born, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe's comment above has been responded to at #"Asserting rules by fiat".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, 99% of the percieved conflicts between MOS and other policies and guidelines could be resolved if the MOS simply adopted a "COMMON STYLE" type "exception clause" (ie a clause that states: if a topic is routinely presented with a given stylization in the majority of sources that discuss the topic... EDitors should make an exception to MOS guidance and use that common stylization). Blueboar (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar's comment above has been responded to at #COMMONNAME and "common style".

Blueboar, while I agree with parts of what you've posted above, you're persisting with this self-interested anti-MOS agenda (AT/NC trumps MOS, because it's ... wait ... it's policy, not guideline). We can't afford poorly conceived distinctions. There is utterly no reason that AT/NC should be so-called policy, up there with verification and neutrality, which are overarching, deep commonalities that are not grounded in such need for dense technicality as NC/AT and MOS). NC/AT should be a guideline, and there should be an audit of both, including their subpages, to ensure harmonisation. Tony (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record... I don't have any "self-interested anti-MOS agenda"... I actually support the MOS. In most situations, the advice it gives is excellent. However, there are rare occasions when it clashes with other policies and guidelines... and I simply feel that it needs to be amended so it better aligns with those other policies and guidelines. If I have any "agenda" it is to make the MOS even better than it is. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur, Tony1. About 80% of AT itself is clearly style advice: ""Explicit conventions", "When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic", "Conciseness", "Foreign names and anglicization", "National varieties of English", "Treatment of alternative names", "Article title format" ("Special characters", "Italics and other formatting", ...), "Titles containing and", etc. – all of that is style. Part of what I didn't get into above about the "could there be a merged, narrow style-and-titles policy?" was that while very little of MoS is policy-worthy, very little of AT is, either. The principal reasons for something being a policy are to prevent systemic conflict and disruption, and to steer the project towards functionally achieving its goals. What exactly in AT rises to this level?

The actual naming criteria (i.e. WP:CRITERIA + WP:COMMONNAME) could be a separate guideline at WP:Naming conventions (and it really is guideline material, since it's all a judgment call about how to balance these conflicting factors, and we routinely make exceptions to each and every one of those "rules"). Another of AT's pointless content-forks from other WP:POLICY, the WP:AT#Disambiguation material, could be merged back into WP:DISAMBIGUATION.

The remaining AT material would be very concise, with a nutshell like "Do not name or rename articles in ways that conflict with WP:NPOV, or other policies and guidelines. For how to determine an appropriate name, see WP:NC. For all style matters regarding the name, see the "Article titles" sections at MOS and its subpages. For topical conventions, see the various topical NC pages. If a title is ambiguous, see WP:DAB. Avoid move-warring and other disruption over article titles (see WP:DE); use proper procedures like WP:RM to resolve disputes. A wikiproject cannot randomly assert new 'naming conventions' without the community accepting them via a WP:PROPOSAL." Short, sweet, and not commingling policy-level material with a bunch of redundant and sometimes conflicting style material.

If this were done, the conflict level at WP:RM should drop significantly, because it would totally eliminate the confused "rename this to Foo because it's the most common name and that's policy, and all guidelines can just [expletive] off, because no other concern in the world could possibly trump that one line in a policy I over-rely on" nonsense. It would also remove various other negative effects of pretending that guidelines apply to everything except titles because they're off in their own little magical universe. To the extent there is a distinction between guidelines and policy, it was never intended to be WP:GAMEd this way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, and would support such an action. Perhaps an RfC should be drafted to that effect? RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be drafted in a subpage here, with time for people to work on it. For things like this, objections to the neutrality or particular nitpicks in an RfC have a tendency to derail it and necessitate multiple RfCs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Such an RfC should start in the userspace, I imagine, and can then be put to community approval at the VP. I'd support such a move, as I said before. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"Asserting rules by fiat"

Moved from #The idea of merging AT into MO

SmokeyJoe wrote, in the thread above: "One problem with the MOS is its style of asserting rules by fiat." But all of WP:POLICY asserts rules by fiat (that of the consensus of editors who care enough over time to participate in shaping the policy/guideline). That's how policy works; these are internal decisions for how to run Wikipedia, based on WP editors' crowd wisdom on how to best do something here, and these often have little to do with how someone else in a different context might insist it should be done. All of policy is an internal, consensus-based compromise between different goals, values, and needs/desires, multiple of which may be valid and (except for WP:OFFICE legal matters) are not imposed on WP from outside. When compromise is not practical but we need to decide on something, an arbitrary decision is made so we can move on. That's true of everything here, from what to do about sockpuppets to what the cut-off % is for an unsuccessful RfA, to how to format initials in people's names. There's a reason we're not governed by Robert's Rules of Order and we don't do everything by an ayes-and-nays vote. The nature of both compromise and, when that fails, an arbitrary rule to stop the conflict and get back to work, is that some parties will not be 100% satisfied with the result. This is true of life in general, and has nothing to do with WP or with MOS especially. And consensus is not fiat; it's a guideline, not a dictated law. If MoS is "fiat" so is all of WP:POLICY. (If the objection is just to its often imperative do-or-do-not wording, that was mostly changed from earlier wishy-washy wording by a single editor, who is now topic-banned for MOS-related disruption; however, that particular series of changes has actually had a positive effect, resulting in fewer disputes and more work getting done.)

On the prepositions and linking-verbs matters, which are off-topic here, probably

The distinction between long uncommon prepositions and short common ones was not invented by MoS at all, but can be found in almost all style guides. They simply differ on exactly where to draw the line: 3 letters? 4? 5? MoS just picked one. If someone thinks it's too short, they can start an RfC about changing it. Various parties keep insisting that MoS has to be based on external sourcing as if WP:CCPOL applied to WP:POLICY material as well as encyclopedic content (it does not), then bizarrely pretending that MoS doesn't already, in fact, comply with this imaginary requirement to begin with. The problem is in failing to understand the distinct between "has a rule that doesn't agree with what I learned in school or use at work" and "made up some bullshit out of nowhere" It's entirely valid, even necessary, for MOS to note that there are multiple ways of doing something, and then choose the way that we want to apply to WP based on this project's needs and that of its ultra-generalized audience. This is how all WP policy works. Yes, there will always be some disagreements over particular cases, and sometimes exceptions have to be made; that's why these are guidelines, not policies. WP is not disrupted and in danger of failing if "Do It like a Dude" is picked over "Do It Like a Dude" or "Do It Like A Dude"; it's trivia. There's a trend in the entertainment press to capitalize all prepositions, and now even words like "a" and "the" in mid-sentence. WP:NOT#NEWS, much less entertainment news, so we have little reason to care about that trend, and we are absolutely not bound to follow it, since it's considered substandard writing in virtually all other contexts. The linking verbs thing is the same kind of case. We capitalize them because most style guides do, most real-world usage does, and WP has no internal need to not go along with this (if you think there is one, you know how to do an RfC). Should an exception be made for "A Boy was Born?", on the basis of convention with regard to that specific title? Maybe. But that would be a debate no matter what, because it's an outlying case. I'm unaware of any style guide anywhere that categorically recommends lower-casing in that type of circumstance. And we can either have "A Boy was Born" and "Do It like a Dude", or "A Boy Was Born" and "Do It Like a Dude", but it's mutually incompatible to mix these models. Virtually every "rule" in MoS (and those hijacked from it into AT) are similar arbitrary choices between conflicting rules in off-WP style guides. People just want to argue about this kind of one more than average because fandom is emotional about things like song titles. If you track WP style disputes as long as I have, you'll see that there's a direct and very strong correlation between the heat and frequency of the "screw the MoS" campaigning, and whether the matter in question is the subject of external publications with insider jargon styles, either fandom-based or professional-specialization-based. I wrote this up in detail several years ago. The fact that they come up more than once and some people get angry doesn't make them different kinds of cases from style matters people don't argue about as much, nor obligate us to negotiate exceptions we should not make. Our present MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM rules of permitting an exception when the vast majority of independent reliable secondary sources also do it that way, is precisely the general, no-favoritism, common sense approach we should be taking. Otherwise, every fanbase and every geeky specialization everywhere is going to lobby until the end of time to get every single style nitpick they want, from putting a ! in Pink (singer)'s name, to all-capitalizing Sony to match its logo, to dropping all compound adjective hyphenation in medical articles, to never giving the name of a Unix/Linux program except in code markup. Well, to hell with that; it's not encyclopedic (and I say that as someone who does some of these things in my off-WP writing). People must accept that WP has its own house style like all other professional-grade publications and if they want to write here they need to abide by it, and work calmly to effectuate a change if they think one is necessary, accepting "no" for an answer if they don't get what they want. Failure to do so is a WP:COMPETENCE problem, and a threat to WP's own self-governance, a marching mini-army of people convinced that WP must be forced to comply with some miscellaneous One True Ways from the outside. Zero editors agree with every line item in any policy or guideline, and zero line items in them have 100% buy-in from all editors, and this has zero implications for consensus being valid. MoS is not different in this regard in any way. People just get "religious" about particular peeves for emotional reasons, and they really need to put that aside when they're working here.

An actual threat to WP's wellbeing is the amount of conflict generated by people on a WP:SOAPBOX mission to force things like the overcapitalization of "Do It Like A Dude", on a faulty policy analysis that, since that spelling is common in the music press, it must be used on WP as a matter of AT policy. Another example was the 8-year campaign to force capitalization of the common names of species, on the basis of some external "standard" in one field that isn't even actually a standard. I can rattle off 20 other examples if you want. All of this disruption, which sucks away editorial energy, and actually drives editors off the system, is directly generated by AT being incrementally WP:POVFORKed from MoS in a "long game" as a conflicting anti-MoS style guide with a {{Policy}} tag on it, so certain WP:CIVILPOV, slow-editwar agendas can WP:WIN at RM on particular pet peeves.

Finally, stating that one of our longest-standing WP:POLICY pages is incompatible with WP:POLICY does not compute. What I can detect in that sentiment is the same old "MoS should be sourced like an article because the core content policies must somehow apply to it" meme. But they don't apply to projectpage content, only to article content. And it wouldn't matter anyway, since MoS is written in consultation with sources. There are nearly zero style matters about which there are not conflicting views in reliable sources. MoS may say nothing on a matter, if it's not important, or say to defer to national dialect style if there is one and there's no compelling reason not to. But if there's consensus that we need a rule on it, MoS just has to pick one, based on what we think serves our needs best not on what is "most common" (see next thread). Picking one is not the same as making one up. Some of these will never change, just as a matter of common sense, like "do not use capitalization for emphasis"; some may, like what the cut-off is for preposition capitalization in titles of works. The fact that style perceptions (sourceable ones) differ right now, as well as change over time on the whole, and so our rules adjust, is a simple reality. It's not a "credibility" problem that our house style guide simply advises "do this here, not that", choosing between one of multiple available ways to approach something, when a consistent result is desirable and/or conflict keeps erupting about a matter. That's what house style guides exist for, and they're all prescriptive (in the sense of actually advising something; when it comes to what to advise, ours is probably the most linguistically descriptive not prescriptive style guide of any seriousness that exists). Part of why people probably get confused and worked up about this and keep trying to treat MoS like an article is the failure to remember that it's a house style guide for WP editors; it is not a general-public work of style advice for how to write papers or business correspondence, and efforts to "source the MoS" to be more like such a work are both WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT#HOWTO problems. Every dispute people start about MoS line-items and MoS's "authority" as a guideline is time stolen, from multiple other editors, away from writing the encyclopedia. So is every pointless "my fetishized COMMONNAME policy trumps every guideline you can cite" junk-waving display at WP:RM.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:SMcCandlish, you are pinging me. That was long, but OK. I think you must have a different view of policy. Policy is for documenting best practice, not for setting rules. The bumps in the MOS exist, and they place the MOS aficionados at odds with the community. Star Trek Into Darkness. A Boy Was Born. The MOSers do not respond to community rejection of their documentation, and so they don't have credibility. Yes, the MOS is copied from external MOSs. That is not sourcing. There is a systematic bias towards adopting the most complex/detail MOSs. These create barriers to new editors in engaging with the project. Alternatives, such as "follow the styling of the most reliable sources", is more appropriate for a low-barrier anyone-can-edit project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue here. I don't agree that the MOS assert rules "by fiat", whatever that means. It documents best practice. New editors don't have to know or care what it says. They will pick up part of WP style as they go (like when they see their first article get moved to a sentence-case title, and al the headers get fixed). The part they don't pick up, like an understanding of trademark and dash guidelines, will be taken care of by someone else who cares. Yes, sometimes there is conflict between those who prefer to follow central style guidance and those who prefer to copy the style of their favored sources; so we work it out. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It means, for example, that some editors (MOS aficionados) are attempting to capitalize (or have done) four letter prepositions because the MOS says to, and the decision for the MOS to prescribe this was written in without evidence of consensus support or evidence that doing so is best practice.

That the text of the MOS was taken from an external MOS is not satisfying. There are other MOSs, some much easier to work with without training. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The linking verbs thing is the same kind of case. We capitalize them because most style guides do, most real-world usage does, ... Should an exception be made for "A Boy was Born?". Well yes. Wikipedia capitalizes linking verbs because most real world sources do. But then with A Boy was Born, most real world sources don't. There is a logical hole in the foundation of the MOS. It answers to no one, having become a beast in its own right. Maybe that is hyperbole, and there is a answer to the paradox, I suggest that SMcCandlish, and editors in general, don't know a linking verb when they see one. Probably because of the confounding complexity of the MOS. A linking verb is, according to an excellent working definition, an unimportant word. You know it is an unimportant word if when deleted, the meaning is clear and unchanged.
• Previously an ArbCom ruling declared that the MOS doesn't effect content. That is not true. "A Boy was Born" does not mean the same thing as "A Boy Was Born". "Star Trek Into Darkness" does not mean the same thing as "Star Trek into Darkness". The MOS is not suitable to be tagged as policy, not until it allows for exceptions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the MOS does allow exceptions. It says so in the opening paragraph. The problem is that no one ever pays attention to that paragraph.

Yes, Blueboar. I think the reason no one pays attention to it is because the MOS is so large, divided into many sections, each with its own LinkBox shortcut that serves as separate title of a pseudo stand alone page. Follow a shortcut, and you get the section positioned at the top of the screen. It is not normal to see the opening paragraph. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

COMMONNAME and "common style"

Moved from #The idea of merging AT into MO

SmokeyJoe wrote, in the thread above: "99% of the percieved conflicts between MOS and other policies and guidelines could be resolved if the MOS simply adopted a "COMMON STYLE" type "exception clause". There are no "other policies and guidelines" involved. The perceived conflicts is only between MOS and AT (plus its spin-off NC pages, the majority of which are actually wikiproject WP:PROJPAGE {{Essay}}s that have wrongly been tagged with {{Guideline}}) – and even these conflicts only arise because the AT and NC pages have been usurping MOS's role, and are trying to be competing, contrary style guidance (more detail on this at #"Asserting rules by fiat", above).

However, MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS already use the same standard as WP:COMMONNAME: They all want to see a strong super-majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. Most people just missed this in COMMONNAME because it was at the bottom of the section. I've merged this into the top of it to reduce confusion on the issue [27]. . But this does not automatically mean that something that passes overwhelming commonness tests for what the name is also passes MOS tests for the overwhelming commonness of a particular stylization of it; different analyses. There is nothing but the most superficial similarity between the concepts of "common name" and "common style". I use all kinds of style on my sig here. If I change it all, or delete it, my username has not changed. See? The notion of them being comparable is a Korzybski fallacy. Style is not a name, it's something applied to a name. Are you your suit? Is your house the paint job you applied to it? Style is not substance. The proposal that WP be forced to accept a style quibble used in the simple "majority" of sources attempts to apply a rule – that doesn't even exist! – about a title (substance) to an area of abstract style. The proposition ignores everything else important in the policy when it's convenient to do so ...

...in over a dozen ways:

COMMONNAME says to pick the most common name for most likely compliance with the WP:CRITERIA. I.e., the criteria are the important part of the policy, and COMMONNAME is just a way to expediently feed a name into those those tests. Stylization of a name has mostly negative interaction with the criteria: It reduces recognizability in most cases; only those familiar with the stylization will expect or recognize it. In some extreme cases, like "iPod", this relationship may be reversed, with "Ipod" not looking right. Then again that may be WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. It totally fails naturalness, obviously. The entire nature of the debate is weird exceptions to natural language usage. Stylization can either harm or hinder precision; if it's a significant difference and is very, very consistently applied in both RS and low-quality sources (i.e. is used universally), it may work as a WP:SMALLDETAILS disambiguation. More often than not, it's simply addition of unnecessary distinction, failing the "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise" requirement (see below). It totally fails conciseness; every addition of a bit of stylization is additional complexity that is unnecessary in almost all cases. It totally fails consistency by its very nature, setting apart this particular name from standard English usage. Note also that the name of that policy is "Use commonly recognizable names", not "Mandatorily use the one name that seems to be the most common and also style it the same way its marketers do". See also "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name". And "Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic" – over-stylization is obviously considered vulgarism by many editors (and people external to WP), it can certainly be avoided, and brow-beating our readers with marketing stylization as "official" is clearly a form of hairsplitting, know-it-all, hyper-correction pedantry, one of the most tedious forms. It specifically says to use an encyclopedic register. The supposition (frequently used at RM) that we should look to what the entertainment press does with regard to band names, for example, is dead wrong. They are generally not independent enough of the subjects (the bulk of their income is from entertainment industry advertising so stylistically they basically "do what they're told"), and see WP:NOT#NEWS anyway. Specialist press generally also is full of the specialist style fallacy which presented WP:JARGON problems; we write for a general audience, and do bow to in-house style preferences of particular off-WP camps of fandom or professional focus. The policy instructs us to rely on "major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals". Note the lack of F&SF zines and blogs, heavy metal magazines, and low-circulation specialist humanities publications fitting into any of those categories. Not every source that is reliable for one thing is reliable for everything, and COMMONNAME clearly states what is reliable for its purposes. Moving further down, WP:NPOVTITLE says to avoid colloquialisms and trendy slogans and monikers, which is really bad news for wacky stylizations. It also helpfully spells out: "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." By now, with WP being between the #5 and #7 most used website in the world, our readers very clearly will expect to be taken to an article title that doesn't visually assault them with marketing stylizations like an advertisement. Nearly all of our users also understand by now how redirection works. If they put in SONY and get taken to Sony, they are not confused in any way. The "not using the official stylized name is Wikipedia making up a name!" objection is silly, because a name is not its style, just as bread is not the butter you put on it, but it is already accounted for in "Non-judgmental descriptive titles" section anyway, if we want to think of unstyled names that way, and by WP:OFFICIALNAME. Next, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Adding stylization is unnecessary addition of precision. I could go on, but the point is made.

At any rate, the broader WP:NPOV policy is also pretty clear that we should not be favoring promotionalism.

If MOS followed the "most common style" (assuming this could be determined in an accurate, objective way, which it usually can't), even when it wasn't overwhelmingly consistent across the sources, WP would be written like marginally professional journalism, and our article titles would look like newspaper headline. If it followed the most common style in academic publishing, it would be impenetrable to most anyone without a masters degree. If we followed the topical journalism that surrounds subjects like movie stars, albums, tech companies and products, and other areas where over-stylization is rampant, the result would be the acceptance of virtually all stylizations as official and required, from [insert Prince symbol here] to LaTeX. There are compelling reasons we do not accept style wankery like this (except perhaps once per article, in a "stylized as" lead statement), except for the rarest exceptions like "k.d. lang" and "iPhone". Accepting all stylization demands would be a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem, and we already know from experience that it's unworkable in other ways (cf. the species capitalization war that went on for 8 years. Style is trivia, but some individuals' "never give up, never surrender" attitude about their peeves is not, and can have serious anti-collaborative consequences on the project). This is all an MoS matter, not an AT matter. It's style (typographic effects, etc.) applied to names, not what the names are ("Macy's" and "Alien 3", versus "Maycees'" and "Alien: Part III"). We only, really rarely, treat style as an integral part of the name when pretty much the entire world has assimilated it that way, through the exact same linguistic process that turned the acronym "LASER" into the word "laser" and the French word "rôle" into the English word "role". Guess what the criterion is, on WP and off, for whether that has happened? Overwhelming super-majority acceptance in reliable sources, across registers, including the most formal. This is descriptive linguistics, not something MoS just made up one day.

We don't consider it indiscriminate to include limited stylization info in some places, but even the top of the eBay article reads: eBay Inc. (stylized as "ebay" since late 2012) is..."; it does not say: ebay (stylized as e_b^aY prior to late 2012) is...". There are many stylization points we would not accept no matter how many external sources did (cf LaTeX example), because they're superfluous attention-hogging, inappropriately dumped into an encyclopedic register and context. (See also MOS:ICONS.)
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR

• Walls of text. I started reading one of them, somebody writing about soapboxing. Halfway through the wall I realise the writer thinks it applies to someone else but not to themselves. TL;DR, but for clarity: oppose all of it. Normally when there is a real problem it can be explained concisely. Until further notice I don't see the problem, nobody seems to care to explain an actual problem, but is running around with purported solutions and/or thinks blaming others (for soapboxing or whatever) is the same as explaining a problem or providing a solution for it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for indicating that you decline to participate. This is another of your pointless exercises is "shout NO against everything I don't understand and didn't come up with myself" (e.g. at WT:MOS against the drafted closure of the "winningest" thread, an Oppose you never adjusted in any way even after your concerns were addressed by changes, in considerable detail, and you were pinged about it). Your response here doesn't even make sense, Francis. Several people (who are not even usually on the same sides in these sorts of discussions) have clearly outlined what the problems are, some quite concisely. You declare it all a text wall (thought the long parts were intentionally broken out into subthreads so they can be ignored by anyone not interested in these side topics), and complain that they have not done what they have in fact done, then complain further that you refuse to engage until they post more, doing what you want them to do that they've already done, but this of course just feeds right back into your claim that there's just too much to read. It's complete nonsense. If you can't parse a few paragraphs of WP policy analysis and come up with an actually meaningful response, then please, for everyone's sake, retire from WP policy discussions, instead of playing silly games like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • You never know when to stop talking do you? I do, for instance in the winningest debate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Like, whatever, man

• I also tl;dred on that text wall but I would like to point out one bit that seemed disingenuous: at the MOS discussion on the capitalization of "like", you are explicitly rejecting the concept of COMMON in favor of rule by fiat. The articles under discussion have literally 100% usage of capitalized "Like" and you opt to ignore them because you look down on entertainment press. I support and we absolutely need explicit passages mentioning COMMON style precisely because it is being ignored. (See also "Love You like a Love Song", where the admin ignored the WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS in favor of an WP:OR production of our style code.) — LlywelynII 15:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  
  And, not that I expect this to take, but, no, people getting our pages to match the COMMON formatting of titles is not a "threat to WP's wellbeing". Cabals of editors picking and choosing among their policies to try to force misdone standards and WP:OR formatting down their throats, on the other hand, are very much a problem to WP's well being. There are core policies here that make things work: COMMON is one of them; MOS, nice as most of it is, isn't. — LlywelynII 15:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I feel quite lost for words. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there actually any particular suggestion on the table here? Other than the initial proposal to rename the "Naming conventions (XXX)" pages to "Article titles (XXX)", this conversation seems to have gone off down various side tracks regarding the interplay between article titles and MOS, but with no concrete proposals that I can attempt to form an opinion on... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Author or writer?

It seems that some titles for professional novelists use the disambiguation word "author", but some use "writer". What is the difference and what is the WP standard, or is everything arbitrary? Timmyshin (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• As dabs are supposed to be as general as reasonable, and "author" is a subset of "writer", I would assume "writer" would be preferred to "author". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I wish this could be written as a guideline so that there is some consistency among pages. Timmyshin (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• The current guidance on this being at WP:NCPDAB: "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being ... In most cases these nouns are standard, commonly used tags such as "(musician)" and "(politician)"." Maybe the last part of that sentence could be expanded to "... "(musician)", "(writer)" and "(politician)"." Anyway hardly a policy matter to go in such detail at WP:AT, rather something for an appropriate guideline page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Question on which name to use for article title

I'm creating an article for Natalie Lauren Sims. She used to go by the stage name Suzy Rock, but now is known as Natalie Lauren as a recording artist. Most sources use the name Suzy Rock and now Natalie Lauren. However, as a song-writer, she is credited on recordings as Natalie Sims. Some of her credits include high-profile songs such as Iggy Azalea's "Work", Change Your Life", and Bounce". So my question is, which name should the article be titled under, "Natalie Lauren" or "Natalie Sims?" Which is the more common name?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

One often has to weigh several factors when deciding these things. There's no universal rule that works for all artists. Sometimes, it is decided that the older, more used stage name, is preferred over a more current name (see Cat Stevens for one example) and sometimes we go with the more recent name, where it is widely recognizable (see Dwayne Johnson for that example). In each case, it would be "what would readers, right now, find the most recognizable name". In the case of Cat Stevens, it was decided that his newer name (Yusuf Islam) was not a well recognized, even in today's sources, and so the article retains the older name. In the case of Dwayne Johnson, the newer name is at least as recognizable as the older one "The Rock" and so the consensus was to go with the newer name. You've really got to use discernment and consensus to make a decision. There's no one-size-fits-all rule. --Jayron32 15:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Natalie Lauren" is by far the most used in sources since she started using that stage name, even in articles discussing her work with Iggy Azalea and Chris Brown, so I think that's the one I'll go with, then.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – people with multiple alternative names can be a bit of a problem. Compare Watkin Tudor Jones: has used so many pseudonyms that eventually the article was put at his name at birth (if I remember well), see Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones for the discussions in that context: after two rounds there was still no consensus to move the article to his most common pseudonym. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• When someone goes by multiple names, it is quite possible that none of the alternatives really stands out as being the COMMONNAME. In which case, look to see if one of the other criteria will resolve the issue. If that does not work... then it probably does not matter (policy-wise) which name is chosen, and since you are the one creating the article, you get to choose which one to use (at least initially). Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses. I'm thinking that in this case, I'll default to the most common name mentioned in sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

DB Schenker Rail - Company has changed name

As of the 2nd of March, 2016 DB Schenker Rail (UK) has become DB Cargo UK. Additionally, DB Schenker Rail has become DB Cargo. According to the press release linked above,

"Global logistics will continue to use "DB Schenker" going forward, while rail freight transport will use "DB Cargo." Although we are separating our logistics and rail businesses from each other by name, we will of course continue to offer integrated rail transport and logistics services throughout Europe where it makes sense for the market and our customers."

Furthermore, the domain listed for both of these (www.rail.dbschenker.de / www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk) now redirect to [dbcargo.com]. Should these pages, alongside the Subsidaries listed in the former's infobox that have pages, have their name changed to DB Cargo (Country)? Thanks. ∫ A Y^™ 17:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Double parenthetical disambiguation

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Unusual case: Talk:National Highway 26 (India)#Requested move 16 March 2016. Summary: The proposal is to move it to "National Highway 26 (India)(old numbering)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyrillic letter titles

Are Cyrillic lettered titles acceptable? see Talk:Choba B CCCP -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), but that wouldn't be of much help here, as well for that not being an accepted guideline, as for "transliteration" in this sense not really being applicable for an album name that got well-established currency in English language reliable sources in a different format.

The big problem with the article is its lack of references, not its title. Maybe first sort out the huge WP:V problem on the article, then after that revisit the article title question. Maybe this is one of the exceptional cases where giving the article title in capitals (as it is on its cover) is justified, while then the Latin letters/Cyrillic letters distinction would more or less dissipate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." - W:Naming Conventions ∫ A Y^™ 18:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect it, but keep the CCCP redirect, because the Cyrillic letter coincide with (without corresponding with) ones in the Latin alphabet, and many would not realize it's Cyrillic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Does the WP:TITLECHANGES section on changing the national variety of English in an article title need to be clarified?

Article titles which have to choose between two national varieties of English (Yogurt vs. Yoghurt, Color vs. Colour, Humor vs. Humour, and so on) are often subject to perennial move discussions which are often lengthy, contentious, and brutal wastes of time as they rarely resolve anything. Our manual of style currently says, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. [...] If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." I think the point that needs to be clarified is what makes a title "stable": editors disagree whether stable means "not moved" versus "no move discussions". Or perhaps "default to the title used by the first major contributor..." is being interpreted as a "good reason to change it", absent any other reasons.

The problem this creates is being exemplified in yet another move discussion at Talk:Humour where it's been suggested that the title is unstable because of the repeated move discussions over a long period (the page has actually been at this title since 13 May 2007), and as a result it's being argued that the "default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" applies, and then there is debate about which version is the first non-stub version. I would like to see that confusion resolved one way or the other, but I'm not sure how to do it, and I don't know what the original intent was.

I suggest these changes (marked up as best I could):

• to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety: When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety.
• to Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes: If an article title has been stablenot been changed for a long time, and there is no goodother reason to change it, it should not be changed. [...] If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stubthe tie is broken by the first contributor to introduce test written in a particular English variety.

I think these changes will help to resolve conflicts about which variety to use, so that we don't go back and forth endlessly and have editors repeatedly bringing up the same move proposals over and over again. Thoughts? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – The guidelines and policies cited here are already clear, and the proposed changes have implications that are less than savoury. I strongly oppose any wording about a "tie". This is not a competition or a debate. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – in fact the most relevant policy for combining ENGVAR and TITLECHANGE is at WP:TITLEVAR, which for some reason or another is ignored in the setup of this RfC. TITLEVAR doesn't make the stub/non-stub distinction, nor does it make the stable/non-stable distinction, just "don't change from one variety of English to another". BTW, it is a link given in the boilerplate of the ENGVAR section. If you want to initiate a WP:RM over it, fine, but "don't change from the very first article title" and "don't change from the current article title" should be major arguments in such discussion unless there is a more appropriate "third name" solution, as explained in the TITLEVAR policy. If listing and relisting WP:RMs continues without progress, it is probably best to negotiate a moratorium on the article's talk page, which has been done with success in a number of cases. From this viewpoint this RfC looks frivolous to me: first appreciate what is in the policy before proposing to rewrite it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (mostly). I appreciate the requester's goal, but I'm skeptical about the suggested changes. If the aim is to reduce the frequency of debates over ENGVAR titles, simply adjusting the wording of this guideline may not accomplish a lot; my impression is that many squabbles have less to do with the guidelines than with personal preferences for one ENGVAR over another, which leads to poorly-supported RMs repeatedly popping up regardless of any sound basis in policy. One change I'd support that might actually help reduce the noise would be to bar anonymous IPs from initiating move requests. The last two at Humour were started in this way, and rightly or wrongly they raise suspicions of shenanigans, which hurts debate.

  The suggestion to discourage retitling if the page hasn't been moved for a long time isn't bad and avoids some of the subjectivity of what "stable" means, but I'd be concerned that users who support a move for which there's no good basis might take that as a motivation to preemptively retitle a page, even if it gets immediately reverted, simply in order to destabilize the article and claim standing under the letter of the guideline. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of WP:TITLEVAR. Changes in policies could help resolve RM debates (or do the opposite!), or they might not make a whit of difference if the participants don't even read the policies to begin with. I'm sure which outcome is which could very well

I just want to note that while I mostly agree with Huwmanbeing, I also disagree with his suggestion that we bar IPs from initiating RM discussion. That seems kind of elitist, in a vacuum of any other evidence of ill intent. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Mostly oppose. If the article title hasn't been changed for a long time, then keep it as it is. Also in favour of WP:TITLEVAR. Tom29739 ^[talk] 13:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose as a mess of unrelated stuff, most of it bogus. It would not hurt to clarify that "stable" means "not moved around, after consensus discussions". The fact that people can move something without discussion (which is grounds for speedy revert at WP:RM) does not make the title "unstable". The fact that tendentious blowhards can launch RM after RM does not make it "unstable" either. An unstable article title is one that moves by consensus repeatedly because the consensus keeps changing, indicating it was generally a local/false consensus each time, due to WP:FACTIONs. However, I think most of us already understand that, so if we do clarify, it should be in a foot note, not more verbiage stuff into the main policy text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"untitled"

An editor has been going around putting {{lowercase title}} on articles whose names start "Untitled", and I don't understand his explanation. Please join the discussion at Talk:Untitled Amazon motoring show. – Smyth\^talk 11:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Update for any other editors arriving here. One day later in Special:Diff/712161049 the query about not understanding was struck. Further reverts Special:Diff/712160201 and Special:Diff/712160143 occurred in the interim prior to this. —Sladen (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEFINITE vs. foreign organisation titles

The following debate may be of interest to editors at this page: I am currently involved in a dispute at Talk:The Minjoo Party of Korea. The matter of contention is whether WP:COMMONNAME overrules a foreign party's official preference to translate its name using "The", when the majority of English-language sources do not treat "The" as a part of the proper noun. I would appreciate third-party opinions either way from editors familiar with this set of policies/guidelines to see whether I am interpreting them correctly. (Hopefully this isn't forum-shopping—the only other place I've posted a separate note is at WikiProject Korea, which seemed reasonable, and the topic is obscure enough that I have little confidence in people participating otherwise.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Names of songs and titles of short stories

Re: Names of songs and titles of short stories. Why do these not have any quotation marks in their Wikipedia article titles? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC regarding COMMONNAME and MOS

Please comment at WP:VPP#RfC: MOS vs COMMONNAME. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving the Genderqueer article to Non-binary gender

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Genderqueer#Requested move 4 June 2016. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus to use the shorter version.--GRuban (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

---

When a song or album is the only song or album to have a standalone article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page for that name per MOS:DABMENTION, should the article title of the notable song or album include the artist name?

Some songs and albums are the only song or album with its name to meet notability guidelines and have an article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page per MOS:DABMENTION. The current situation on the inclusion of artist names in article titles is inconsistent. A few examples of no artist names in article titles include Umbrella (song), Pillowtalk (song), and Anti (album); they are the only songs and albums of their names to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia, although there are other non-notable songs/albums of the same name listed at Umbrella (disambiguation)#Songs, Pillow talk (disambiguation)#Songs, and Anti#Music respectively. A few examples of artist names in article titles include Chandelier (Sia song), Blackstar (David Bowie song), and Title (Meghan Trainor album); similarly, they are the only songs and albums of their names to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia, but Chandelier (song), Blackstar (song) and Title (album) redirect to disambiguation pages, where other non-notable songs/albums of the same name are listed. WP:PRECISION 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. WP:NCM states Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). The dispute arises on whether non-notable songs and albums that lack standalone articles can be considered "article topics". I think we can all agree that the current inconsistency is not ideal, and I am starting a request for comment for a result that should apply to most usual cases. sst✈ 15:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Use the shorter version There's no need to include the artist name if that is the only notable recorded work. If an article is subsequently created for another work of the same name, then the disambiguation can be specified in the title.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version - 3Family6's explanation above sums up my thoughts exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: @Sergecross73: what if, as is so often the case, there are two songs: (1) One is a hit single from the 1960s mentioned in an album article but (2) is a non-charting digital download with the same title from 2015 with a giant article. Should the artist name be removed from the one which has the standalone article even if the one without the article has a better claim to notability? In other words, are songs an exception from normal en.wp WP:DISAMBIGUATION practice that we do not ambiguate articles simply because they are standalone rather than part of larger articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood what your point is. I thought my arguments fall under what's given at WP:DISAMBIGUATION. I'm arguing that if a song is standalone, but other topics by the same name exist, that the song should be disambiguated as "Song" (song), as opposed to disambiguating it as "Song" (Singer's song). By no means am I saying that it should just be "Song" when other topics of the name "Song" exist.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I just want to note that we have had several RFCs on this issue in the past... the last one took place about a year ago (if I remember correctly). While I don't mind revisiting the issue (it is certainly possible that consensus may have changed since then), those previous RFCs (and the consensus that emerged from them) are what set the our current practices. I urge everyone to search the archives (for this page, for other relevant guideline pages, as well as the Village Pump) to familiarize yourselves with those previous discussions. It will save everyone a lot of needless repetition of effort. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If there is already consensus on this specific issue, I don't see it in RM discussions. sst✈ 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version per 3Family6; also, we can always move a page if circumstances change. ^{Recruited by the feedback request service} -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Precision is better than ambiguity – E. g. Pillowtalk (song) could mean any of several songs by that title that are listed in WP articles. Why not disambiguate with artist name rather than incomplete disambiguation in such cases? Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  Dicklyon But there are two song articles with the title "Pillow Talk." What's being discussed here is the case where there is only one song. If there is only one article with a certain title, why do we need to disambiguate more than needed?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was offered as an example above; perhaps someone made a new article since then? Or one has a space and one doesn't, in which case disambiguation is still needed, and way better than distinguishing to tiny differences. How about Umbrella (song), then? I see five other songs, but not with their own articles? Disambiguating would be good there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• KiSS Keep It Short and Simple. Always if possible. If you have a strong reason to make titles longer and more complicated feel free to do so, but add only few words (only 1 if u can) to avoid disambiguation. 100% agree with 3family6. Kind regards from Valdarno.  Klaas `Z4␟` V 09:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - there seems to be some confusion here between notability and whether there's an article or not. I don't think too many people would dispute that a non-notable song should not be considered when disambiguating some other song that is notable. However, others are saying "wait for the article to be created". That's a different issue. Some notable songs don't yet have articles, but certainly could (because they're notable). Other notable songs nonetheless redirect to the album on which they are contained, for WP:NOPAGE reasons. In those cases, per WP:PARTIALDAB, the full artist name should be spelled out even where there is only one song article of that name on the Wiki, because the other notable songs of the same name will be listed at the dab page, and the album or redlink is a legitimate target for that title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think too many people would dispute that a non-notable song should not be considered when disambiguating some other song that is notable. That does not seem to be the case currently at RM discussions. sst✈ 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Right. I hope I can be recognized as part of that "too many" that would prefer precision to ambiguity even when only one of the songs has an article. The "shortest possible name" approach puts zero value on precision; I think this is not a good way to balance the WP:CRITERIA. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

      But Dicklyon, why do we need to do this to achieve precision for a notable song vs a non-notable song, when we are appending (song) on the end, but there is apparently no need to do so if the song is already primary topic for the whole concept. For example, there may be some non-notable song somewhere called Hey Jude, yet we don't feel the need to append (Beatles song) on to the main article Hey Jude. But when it comes to something like Thriller (song), supposing there were non-notable album tracks with the same name, you are telling us we should rename the song Thriller (Michael Jackson song) because of precision. I'm not sure why the Hey Jude is precise, whereas the Thriller (song) is not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

      Well, apparently you don't need to, since most editors responding here are happy with the shorter ambiguous title. I just happen to think that precision is better than ambiguity. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

      I too think that precision, consistency and lack of ambiguity is better than shorter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • There is a difference between notability and whether a subject has an article, I agree. I just think that, unless there is an active link, such as redirect or something, there's no need to disambiguate more than "song" or "album" as there is only one article, unless the creation of another article is imminent. For instance, there was no need to disambiguate Stickman's Tunnel Vision album more than "album" until I created the Tunnel Rats album of the same name years later.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Question. Does the same apply when a song or album article is the only topic across WP (i.e., not just among songs/albums) with an active link? So, if we have a dab page with multiple entries, and only one of them has a bluelink, should that article or the dab page get the basename? See Gotta Have It for an example. Dohn joe (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• There has been established a hard won consensus that disambiguation terms should generally only be as precise as needed to disambiguate one existing article from other existing articles. I don't think as a general rule there should be made an exception from this for articles about songs. So if no other article has the same name as the song title, the article about the song should not have a disambiguation term. If only articles about things that are not songs have the same name, then the article about the song should have the disambiguation term (song). And if there are articles about songs with the same name then it should have the disambiguation term ([artist name] song). The only case where I can think of where it might be reasonable to deviate from this rule would be when there is only one song that has an article about it, but there is doubt whether that song is the primary topic for that name. If a large proportion of the people who search for the given song title are actually looking for another song than the one they end up being directed to, then it might be more useful to have them directed to a disambiguation page, where they can instead find links to articles about the albums where the songs of that title appear on. TheFreeloader (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  What "hard won consensus" are you referring to? Please could you point to the place where this was established. And establishing policies on Wikipedia are not a question of winning or losing, simply what is best for the readership. If it was that hard to win the consensus, perhaps it wasn't the correct one to start with? On your specific point, again, I would say that it is not a question of whether there's an article on the subject, but on whether it's notable. At MOS:DABRL we are given a fictitious example of a Flibbygibby (architecture), a notable concept which appears on the Flibbygibby disambig page, but doesn't yet have an article. Now let's suppose that this is the notable Flibbygibby (Kylie Minogue song), that doesn't yet have an article. Would we call some other song Flibbygibby (song), knowing all the while that there's a Kylie song with the exact same name awaiting an article?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  It is consensus because it is the policy. One of the 5 naming criteria is conciseness, which is specified as meaning: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.". This is a hard won consensus because it is a policy that has been up for discussion many times, and have been fought hard over. But, of course, if you think this policy needs to change to benefit our readership, then you are welcome to start a new discussion to change it. Consensuses can change. About your examples, I think it comes down to whether those subjects are primary topics for those names. As I said above, I think there would be a reasonable case for having the disambiguation term "(song)" redirect to a disambiguation page if it is not clear that the song that happens to have an article is the primary topic among songs of that name. In that situation is would be useful for readers to have easy access to links to the albums or artists also associated with other songs of that name.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• If the Kylie Minogue song is notable, create a stub for it. Until sources are looked for, we don't know that it is notable. bd2412 T 18:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't work. A stub is an article. Create a stub article after one has found sources enough to demonstrate notability, or all one is doing is creating pointless work for CSD/PROD admins, or for AFD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I would generally propose that if an article on an album exists, but songs on the album are not individually notable, then redirects should be made from the song titles to the album. If the song titles are ambiguous, redirect from a disambiguated song title to the album. bd2412 T 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: that means we have to create stubs for every top 10 single from 1930s to 1990? That's thousands of stubs. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Yes, that's thousands of stubs. So? If the songs are notable (and if chart placement is the criteria for notability), then we absolutely should have stubs for all of these, which editors will come along and develop over time. bd2412 T 13:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: why? what's the point? There won't be any more info than in the album article. I don't think you're saying that whether we cover a topic in a stub or in an article mention affects that topic's notability, no? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: If we don't have the stub, then we should have a redirect from the song title to the album. Either way, the reader searching for that particular topic should find what they're looking for. bd2412 T 13:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the primary topic aspect of it. There are lots of songs that are performed or popularized as covers and renditions so the disambiguation to the original artist would add more confusion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and follow the existing guidelines based on topic and article content not article title for WP:Disambiguation, don't rewrite this to make a special exception. The body of the encyclopedia has a giant bias to turning out semi-notable article stubs for WP:RECENT media trivia. 1,561x 2015 songs to 128x 1955 songs. This does not mean that 2015 songs (or any other media product) are 10x more notable, it just means we are accumulating fluff on recent topics and not covering properly older ones - under that many 1950s-1990s songs will exist only as mentions of singles in album articles. Which is where existing WP:DISAMBIGUATION guidelines come in. Disambiguate by topic, not by stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (i.e, use short version). I agree with virtually every rationale point above for why. (sorry, I know that's a WP:PERX, but I also know that any closer knows how carefully I consider these things, and reiterating all of the above in my own idiom would be a long post that wouldn't really add anything).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  Potential exception for cases where the majority of an artist's notable-song articles are disambiguated, per WP:CONSISTENCY, an issue Blueboar raised below. I'm not 100% convinced of that one, but it's worth discussion perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Use shorter version. Unnecessary disambigs may trick readers into believing we have content on another possible subject with the same name, which I find pointless. Not to mention that it makes internal linking unnecessarily more difficult. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose My understanding is that it is supposed to be about content of articles not titles of articles. Especially for songs, disambiguation is only going to be a help to readers. Primary topic is a different consideration. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use shortest title possible per WP:CONCISE. There is no need for song or album titles to be treated differently from other articles. As 3family6 explained, we can always move articles title if it's necessary, but oftentimes it's not. Calidum ¤ 03:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use the reasonably shorter title per WP:CONCISE and everything that 3family6, Sergecross, Calidum, and others have said on the matter. WP:NCM states to only use further DABs when needed, and they clearly aren't needed for instances where there's only one topic notable enough for a standalone article. People aren't likely to search for non-notable topics over those worth own articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Different opinion. It really makes no difference which format is used. If there is only one song called XYZ then whether it is at XYZ or XYZ (Foo song) really doesn't matter providing it is significantly or only associated with the one artist. The problem is the insistent and unnecessary pointy moves - in either direction, including PT RM nominations, i.e. don't move something unless it must be moved, not because it's your opinion it should be moved. I am not opposed, nor wish to change, any of the guidelines mentioned, save that WP:NCM should be strengthened so those that think it doesn't say when there are two or more titles with the same name disambiguate by adding the artists' name cannot argue anymore. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• A consideration no one has raised... Consistency can be a factor... If lots of other article titles on songs by a given artist are disambiguated, we may wish to continue that pattern of disambiguation even in the titles that don't strictly need it. There are no absolutes here. Good article titles are a balance of all our criteria. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse Blueboar's comments. Consistency (and stability) should be factored in. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Blueboar: In light of your rationale here, you may wish to add this general point to this RfC, since I'm not sure anyone else raised it, but it's quite salient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• If we only have one article on a song by that name, it is by default the WP:PTOPIC and basically gets to choose what to be called. --Izno (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  Izno (talk · contribs) but that's the opposite of policy, see hurricane? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  @In ictu oculi: Please illustrate. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. --Izno (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I mean per WP:DISAMBIGUATION if we had no article at hurricane we wouldn't move Hurricane (song) to Hurricane. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No one has ever suggested that. That's what WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is for. This RfC is about when there is only one notable song/album with a given name. Dohn joe (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Use the shorter version, and place hat notes to the dab page where necessary. As others have said, titles ought to be as concise as possible, and no more precise than necessary to distinguish from other articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use the shorter version We should keep it simple. When the article title is already descriptive enough that it couldn't be confused with other articles, there's no point in adding the Artist's name. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• I say keep it short and leave out the artist name unless absolutely necessary to distinguish from another song article. Song's notability for stand-alone article is established with the existence of said article--if it wasn't notable enough, the article shouldn't/wouldn't exist. We have hatnotes and disambiguation pages for the off chance that the reader would be looking for a different song. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Sanity check: should Let It Go (EP) allow readers to find the 2014 English-language EP by James Bay, or should they be directed to the Korean song "Naege mushimhan deut chagabgiman han nimam nan / Jal moreul gotman gata niga nan eoryeoweo." ? Some of the comments above are overturning the principle that rather than we lead people to real content on the real world (driven for example by what is notable in WP:RS) to a view of a limited reality where only what titles we determine exist as standalone stubs should determine what we allow readers to look for. I thought Wikipedia wasn't a reliable source for Wikipedia, and now we're to determine what exists outside Wikipedia by how we bundle or fork content into standalone titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• If there are multiple songs with the same title, some form of disambiguation is needed regardless of whether only one song has a standalone article. There is no need for the sole article to be parenthetically disambiguated with the artist's name — but if it is not, it should have a hatnote to the disambiguation page (assuming there are entries there for the other songs linking to the respective album or artist as appropriate). Another approach would be to create redirects for one or more of the other songs and disambiguate all with the artist name and redirect the "X (song)" title to the disambiguation page as R from incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Shorter version, but with a hatnote per the above comment. I do not see why this RfC was made about songs since it could work for pretty much anything (e.g. persons).

I see comments to the effect that DAB parenthesis should be used for precision even when no DAB is needed; or more weakly that if DAB parentheses are needed, we could as well make them long and precise. Well, that debate is outside the scope of this RfC, and current guidelines are against it. I see merit in the argument, though I personnally would oppose such a change, but I strongly oppose pushing it through a remote RfC on a specific subtopic.

Excluding this, the only argument for the longer version is that a reader could end up on Foo (song) about a song by Artist1 which does not mention a song with the same title by Artist2. This is a real concern, but it is better addressed by a hatnote, which we should have anyways (if we decided to use Foo (song by Artist1), it should still have a DAB hatnote). Of course this only applies if there is an appropriate target (in that case, the DAB page). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:22, 18 May 2016 (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.

Starting a title with a slash

Is starting an article title with a slash permitted? I don't see it addressed here. I'm asking because an editor moved Drive (web series) to /DRIVE and it causes an obvious problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NC-SLASH. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question... NC-SLASH indicates that such titles are permitted (since it explains how to make them work).

That said... Because you do need to add all sorts of HTML coding to make staring with a slash work... I think it fair to argue that: while permitted, we should seriously consider other alternatives ... They may be better. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. NCSLASH does say that it is a workaround, so it seems the article would be best moved back. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting comments on requested move: ESports

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The present name of the article (on a general topic, professional video-gaming competition) coincides with a commercial trademark (in that market sector).

Over the last year, there have been 6 or so requested moves and other renaming discussions at what is presently Talk:ESports, most of them poorly attended, with mostly WP:ILIKEIT votes, mis-citations of policy where any was mentioned at all, and closure reasoning problems (while only one was an admin close), resulting in the name flipping around all over the place.

I've opened a multi-option, RfC-style requested move at:
     Talk:ESports#Broadly-announced and policy-grounded rename discussion

It presents four potential names, all with some rationale outlines provided.

Input is sought from the community to help arrive at a long-term stable name for this article, based on actual policy and guideline wording, and on treatment in reliable and independent sources (i.e. not blogs or "eSports" marketing).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC affecting article titles

It is here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles.

BTW some people are of the opinion that, since it directly affects titling, it should be here at WP:AT where it can be folded in with guidance provided by the Five Virtues.

Other people of are of the opinion that, since it is about disambiguation specifically, it should be at WP:Disambiguation (which FWIW is technically a guideline not a policy) and this is where I have placed it. Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion for New York

A discussion is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Please contribute at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. Interested editors might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG ^talk 23:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

Sai Noom Khay (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOT DONE - No edit was proposed. Blueboar (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion needed on a possible page move

Please visit and comment here:

• Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#Opinions welcome

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

British nobility

The guideline, "British nobility" appears to conflict with "Use commonly recognizable names". The policy says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." But the guideline says, "Members of the British peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title", e.g. Alun Gwynne Jones, Baron Chalfont; Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington."

The British field marshall is universally referred to as the "Duke of Wellington," and that page redirects to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, a name that I suspect few if any readers would type in. The name of the article for the British admiral, Lord Nelson, is "Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson." Lord Nelson is a redirect to the article.

Similarly, some peers are better known for their common names. We had this discussion with John Buchan, a well known writer who was elevated to the peerage when he was appointed Governor General of Canada. The article had been named, "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir."

I recommend in keeping with policy, the guideline request that we use the simplest name as the article name rather than as a re-direct.

TFD (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Discussion_elsewhere and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Discussion_elsewhere. PamD 08:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• As you're proposing changing WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), shouldn't the discussion be taking place on that talk page? Opera hat (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple reason that this guideline exists is that all British peers are commonly known as either "Duke of [Title]" (if they are a Duke) or "Lord [Title]" (if they are not). Every holder of the Dukedom of Norfolk, for example, is and has been known simply as "the Duke of Norfolk", and (as far as I can see) every single one of them has an article. So if we followed the common name policy blindly we'd have to have a whole string of articles called Duke of Norfolk (19th century politician), Duke of Norfolk (15th century soldier), etc. For a lot of peers there wouldn't be obvious disambiguators (in some families generation after generation had political or military careers), so you'd end up with lots of the even messier Duke of Norfolk (1628-1684), etc. (You couldn't even use 1st Duke of Norfolk, etc., because that doesn't distinguish between different creations of the same title, in this case Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk and John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk.) Your alternative would therefore be far messier and confusing (for both editors and readers) than the current system, which is the system encyclopaedias and scholarly works pretty much always use to solve this problem. It would make article titles simpler for a few peers who are far more famous than the other holders of their title (like the Duke of Wellington and Lord Nelson), but far messier for all the others, and knowing Wikipedia would create endless disputes as to precisely who fits into which category. Proteus (Talk) 10:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Proteus on this. Only a very few people who are distinctly NOT known by their titles should be an exception. I can't really think of an example... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proteus has answered this pretty well. The form of the name we use is essentially a pre-Wikipedia type of disambiguation invented to deal with the problem he describes. Our current practice is consistent with other encyclopedias and biographical works that list multiple peers, and I consider that a much stronger imperative than maintaining the internal consistency of rules we invented. Choess (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I too agree with Proteus. There's no good reason to change the guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONCISE issue

Hi everyone,

I have an issue with the following line on WP:CONCISE.

The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area.

Wikipedia is written for a large audience; we're trying to write encyclopedic articles for the general reader. That we should keep article titles as concise as possible makes sense to me, and that by itself doesn't need any explanation. So why have "to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area" there? It also makes me wonder, how can a person "identify the topic" just by its title? For instance, I'm mostly concerned with editing video game-related articles; there are big budget video games like the Assassin's Creed series, the Call of Duty series or classics like Super Mario Bros., but there are also hundreds of small-time indie games, with titles like I Am Bread, AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity or The Binding of Isaac; even if someone is familiar with the subject area of video games, they might not've heard of these types of games. So how can we assume the general reader would? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, without the "to identify the topic..." language the statement would leave readers wondering "'sufficient information' to what?" The very idea of conciseness is to communicate maximum information in minimum space, not just solely to use as little space is possible. So there's some kind of balancing act. I don't know if you'll find this example helpful, and I know USPLACE is kind of a bugbear, but to me the benefit of added information is apparent if you compared the article title "Bothell" with "Bothell, Washington" – the latter title is longer, but it also allows readers to identify just by looking at the title that the article is about a town in a particular US state. An article title "Bothell" by itself is not a very helpful one.

If you're asking, why do we care if it's 'enough information to identify the topic to someone familiar with the topic area', as distinct from 'enough information to identify the topic to the general public,' that's a little beyond my field of expertise, but using the same "Bothell, Washington" example, there is a real benefit for American readers to including the ", Washington" notwithstanding the fact that non-american wikipedians might not understand the state reference or find the additional context to be helpful. AgnosticAphid talk 18:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess "identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area" is mainly so that you don't have to overly worry, in the title, of explaining concepts that a person interested in the subject probably already knows or ought to be able to get up to speed to study the subject. I think it's just an out so we don't have people making article titles "Bothell, Washington, United States" since if you're interested in an obscure town in Washington State you probably already know that Washington State is in the United States. Herostratus (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It leads to John Barnes (Australian rules footballer) - unambiguous - being moved to this John Barnes (Australian footballer) - what brand of football does he play? I fail to see the advantage.

This is precisely why the original language was "to a person familiar with the topic" (rather than the subject area). As Soetermans notes, just because someone might be familiar with the subject area of video games does not mean they are likely to recognize video games from their titles alone, but someone familiar with a given video game will recognize it from the title alone. That's the point, and that's the only familiarity standard we've ever needed to meet (and these video games are a great example of that, but then so are city names and countless other examples), and the policy wording should reflect that accurately. --В²C ☎ 21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Murder of JonBenét Ramsey

There is a move request on the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey page to move it to Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Another suggestion is to simplify it to her name, making it JonBenét Ramsey, which was the article name until November 2012.

Would you mind weighing on the discussion at Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016 regarding this and any standard that this project may have for naming articles when someone has been murdered or died?

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, but adding the option of just using JonBenet's name *seemed* to have result in the closing of the topic and moving the article - but it may have been due to the length of time the topic was open and the administrator may not have noticed the very recent input.

If the Titles project has leanings towards how the article is named, would you please post a comment here or at Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Move review?. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

We're still in a protracted conversation about this. Can someone help out by weighing in? Thanks so much!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles about more than one product

I'd like some clarification on a tilting issue that doesn't seem to be addressed in the article. Oftentimes, related products are covered in one article. Is it acceptable to title the article with both product names, or is that practice specifically excluded somewhere?

For a specific example, the Gulfstream IV article covers several related variants of Gulfstream Aerospace aircraft. These include the GIV, the G350, the G400, and the G450, along with several US military variants designated in the C-20 series.

I recently moved Gulfstream G500 (2015), which also covers the G600, to Gulfstream G500/G600, as both aircraft are closely related, and per the discussion at Talk:Gulfstream G500/G600#Renaming. (Confusingly, there is an earlier model called the G500, covered at Gulfstream G550.) Did I violate a specific naming guideline with this move? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between..."

Is this accurate?

The article's talk page doesn't appear to have ever hosted an RM, and the oldest version of the page, as written by someone who has apparently been (all but) inactive since 2011, used the current title. Saying that it was selected for this purpose is a little weird, because there are a bunch of arguably better reasons not to use any of the "nation-specific" alternatives: fizzy drink is WP:INFORMAL, pop is WP:INFORMAL and soda is WP:AMBIGUOUS and possibly also WP:INFORMAL. WP:COMMONALITY actually ranks somewhat down the list.

Anyone mind if I change this to "for example, soft drink is preferable to nation-specific terms such as..."?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not nation specific... the alternatives are more "regional" than national. I am sure we could find a better example. One that was discussed in some depth. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You're correct. I was using the wording of the page. Scare-quotes added. As for finding a better example, I'm not entirely sure it's necessary, or even preferable. The one that's already there is clearly uncontroversial, but one that received extensive discussion was probably opposed by some Wikipedians with a WP:RETAIN or other valid rationale. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation

An essay I'm working on currently reads in part:

If there is a primary topic this article receives the base name, or if there is no primary topic the base name is used for a disambiguation page.

This seems to me to be exactly what WP:ATDIS and related guidelines say, but perhaps not so clearly, and entirely consistent with our current practice (with the possible exception of New York, which is how this all came up of course). However it has been challenged as entirely inaccurate and WP:UNDUE, as many facets other than primary topic may and likely will be involved in a particular page's naming. [28]

Questions:

1. Apart from New York, are there any exceptions to this general rule?

2. Does this rule accurately reflect the intent of the policy, and if so, would it be good to incorporate it into the policy and/or guidelines?

All comments welcome. TIA Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. New York notwithstanding, most other exceptions to this rule are probably good candidates for listing at WP:RM.

That said, your statement must be understood with this caveat in mind: "receives the base name" means the base name is either the title of the article for the primary topic, or it redirects to that article. That is, one topic may be primary for more than one base name. For example: the largest city in the US is primary for New York City as well as New York City, New York. Only one can be the title, the other (and many others) must redirect. --В²C ☎ 21:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I was struggling to find a way of expressing that simply and still am.

Try this: If there is a primary topic then the base name should lead directly to the article on that topic, either by being the title of the article, or by being a redirect to it. If there is no primary topic, then the base name should similarly lead directly to a disambiguation page.

It's wordier but you're right, the meaning of previous attempt was obscure. Can we do still better? Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As WP:AT currently reads, there are many factors in deciding on a page name, including recognizability, conciseness, naturalness, precision, consistency and neutrality. When titles require disambiguation, there are often competing concerns and no black and white answer. For example, suppose there are just two articles about people named John Doe. The first gets 5,000 views per month and the second gets 10,000. The first person is always called just John Doe in reliable sources, but the second is called John A. Doe half the time. John Doe is more concise, John A. Doe is more precise, they are both natural, and they are both neutral, but a parenthetical disambiguator would not be natural and might not be neutral if one of them was, say, a freedom fighter or terrorist, depending on your point of view. Is there a primary topic in this case? If so, which? If not, must we have a dab page, or are readers better served by hatnotes on each article? Sometimes titles must be decided on a case by case basis, taking into account policy but applying reason. It's impossible to have a "rule" to fit every situation. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we need to apply all of those plus common sense (according to that essay, anyway, but not according to template:Policy, common sense is however mentioned in template:Guideline, and the policy template does link to the common sense essay but under a different name... go figure).

I would say that in your example John Doe is ambiguous and cannot be used for either article title under WP:ATDIS, and that to be influenced to use it for either because of their political allegience would be POV and unacceptable. So John A. Doe and John Doe (Scottish separatist) (or similar) would be the go, with a two-way DAB as there aren't any other John Does. That's the current policy, and seems to work well when it is followed... like most policies and guidelines, which represent a great deal of experience and wrangling (and common sense).

But that's a hypothetical example. We have yet to come up with any actual examples (apart from good 'ol NY). Doesn't that say something? Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your preference as to how to handle John Doe is reasonable and in accordance with policy. But others might reasonably disagree and also be in accord with policy. John A. Doe gets twice the views of John Doe so maybe there is a primary topic. John Doe (Scottish separatist) is not concise or natural and some might argue not neutral. Should that be avoided? The point is that reasonable editors can disagree about individual cases and still be following policy, of which disambiguation is one of several important and interrelated factors. Consensus can be formed, or not, after applying reason and common sense to the facts of each case. As to real life examples, there are hundreds. Just last week I added hatnotes to Fay Allen, Roger Carvalho, Leonardo Castellani, and John Bulmer. These are not unusual cases. Station1 (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(Agree that in the hypothetical case, it could be argued that there is a primary topic... twice the page views is marginal but certainly a big enough difference to look at other factors, see User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views. See also User:Andrewa/Andrew's Principle. But I think we're a bit off-topic.)

OK... Now the rule we are testing is If there is a primary topic then the base name should lead directly to the article on that topic, either by being the title of the article, or by being a redirect to it. If there is no primary topic, then the base name should similarly lead directly to a disambiguation page. I'm looking for exceptions to this rule.

Those four articles are all at their base names. So, you're saying that none of them are the primary topics for their respective page names, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The pageviews of the older articles are tiny and the linked articles are new, so I believe most editors would say there are no primary topics there. Someone who believes there's a primary topic in virtually every case might disagree with that, though. Station1 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So it's unclear whether they are the primary topics now, although they were once, and not high on anybody's priorities to find out. Is that really an exception to the rule? It seems to me that if someone were to raise an RM on one of these, and if it were decided that it wasn't the primary topic, then the correct and likely result would be to disambiguate, as per both WP:ATDIS and my proposed rule. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe there are primary topics among those four examples? If so, there are primary topics for virtually every ambiguous title on WP and your rule would be pointless. If not, under current policy you should create dab pages for those four topics, despite the lack of benefit and waste of your time. Or you should create RMs and waste several editors' time. Or we can just apply reason and common sense to the current policy. Station1 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters what I think about these particular examples.

If there is no primary topic, then there should be a two-way DAB, and the article currently at the base name moved to a disambiguated title. If the primary topic is already at the base name, no change. If the primary topic is the other article, then move it to the base name and disambiguate the other. If it's not clear, leave it alone for now, and come back later.

But as you suggest, it's not a high priority. It's just what should happen when someone gets around to it, and no great disaster if that's no time soon. (And I don't think it's necessarily my job to fix every problem I see, either.)

What I'm looking for are examples where what's at the base name is clearly not the primary topic. You don't seem to think any of these are cases of that, am I correct?

What would be even better is cases of a non-primary topic clearly being at the base name, and an RM to correct this having been rejected despite this. That would be pure gold! Andrewa (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Two questions were posed at the top of this section: Are there exceptions to the proposed 'rule', and does the proposed rule accurately reflect policy (or are factors other than, or in addition to, 'primary topic' sometimes involved in titling articles)? I supplied one hypothetical and four actual examples of cases where factors other than a strict adherence to the proposed rule are or might be properly involved. So the answer to the final part of the original question is: No, the proposal should not be incorporated into policy and guidelines. I agree that it would be "inaccurate" and give "undue" weight to 'primary topic' over other factors that might be considered in choosing an article title. Station1 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree that your examples are cases where factors other than a strict adherence to the proposed rule are or might be properly involved. But that wasn't what I asked for, as I said above.

Similarly, I'm afraid your paraphrase of my second question misses the point completely. The proposed rule is of course subject to other policies etc just as WP:ATDAB and WP:DAB are, and would be if incorporated into the policy or guideline. It's just a clarification of what they already say, but which many don't understand. Andrewa (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

But it's not just a clarification of what policy already says. You asked,"Does this rule [sic] accurately reflect the intent of the policy?" My answer is, "No". That you think it is merely a clarification may explain why you think "many" don't understand policy when in fact they do. Station1 (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but as we have not yet come up with a single example of a page where the result of applying "my" rule would be any different to the existing policy and guidelines (which are spread over more than eighty current policy, guideline and MOS pages, I might add), I still ask, what is the difference? Other than clarity, that is?

It's an honest question. I accept that others may have a different and valid interpretation. And maybe you're right, maybe it's my fault that I can't see the difference. An example would solve that. Andrewa (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Station1, Andrewa, etc., the issues of determining whether there is a primary topic for a given title and what to do with if there is are related but separate issues. Station1 in particular seems to be objecting to Andrewa's wording mostly on the grounds that people don't always agree about primary topic. I suggest that's not objecting to the wording, as the wording presupposes that there is a primary topic, and therefore that there is consensus about that. If there is no consensus about primary topic, then the wording would not apply. --В²C ☎ 22:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. If there's no consensus on whether or not there is a primary topic, then my rule can't be applied. It has no effect at all unless we first decide whether or not there is a primary topic. And the policy and guidelines on which it is based say exactly the same thing. It's just that my rule says them in a way that's (relatively) easily understood, while (as we've seen repeatedly at RM NY) the policy and guidelines aren't well understood at all.

What I don't understand is how my rule could be interpreted in any other way. Andrewa (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

В²C: No, that's not quite it. My objection is best expressed in the first 2 sentences I wrote in this section. In my hypothetical, even if there is complete consensus that the second John Doe is the primary topic, under current policy we can still choose to name his article John A. Doe and put a hatnote on the first John Doe (or choose among several other options, including a dab page if that works best). Conversely, if there is complete consensus that there is no primary topic, under current policy we can still choose to name one John Doe and the other John A. Doe (or several other options). The choice would be based on reason applied to the several article-titling criteria mentioned in the policy. Under the proposal, we would be straightjacketed into slavishly following a rule. If there was consensus that the second John Doe was the primary topic, under this rule we must title his article John Doe and nothing else; we must not have a dab page. Conversely, if there was consensus that there was no primary topic, we must have a dab page and no other solution will do. This is a change in policy, not a clarification.

Using the example of New York, even if everyone were to agree that the city is the primary topic, under current policy there are still legitimate arguments for keeping things the way they are: conciseness, consistency, naturalness, to name just three (I'm not saying they would or should prevail in a discussion, but when enough editors put forth reasoned argument based on current policy, lack of consensus for a move would result). Under the proposed rule, the only factor allowed to be considered would be 'primary topic' and the result would be different (I don't know if that's the motivation for this rule or not); that is not a clarification of current policy, it is a change. Station1 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Detailed reply

I'd like to thank User:Station1 for the detailed anaylsis above and give an equally detailed reply. I think it addresses the issues very well.

No, that's not quite it. My objection is best expressed in the first 2 sentences I wrote in this section.

OK. Those read As WP:AT currently reads, there are many factors in deciding on a page name, including recognizability, conciseness, naturalness, precision, consistency and neutrality. When titles require disambiguation, there are often competing concerns and no black and white answer. Agree with the first. Unsure just what the second sentence means, but if it means that these article naming criteria are in any way bypassed by my proposal, disagree. They are unaffected.

In my hypothetical, even if there is complete consensus that the second John Doe is the primary topic, under current policy we can still choose to name his article "John A. Doe" Agree. (And similarly under my proposal.)

... and put a hatnote on the first John Doe No. Or at least, not if you're assuming that we've used the base name John Doe for this other John Doe. Under our current policy, we can't do that. If the primary topic of John Doe is this John A. Doe, then John Doe redirects to John A. Doe, with a hatnote there. And we need to find a way to disambiguate this other John Doe.

(or choose among several other options, including a dab page if that works best). Maybe. What other options exactly? If you mean that John Doe could be the title of this DAB page, no, it couldn't be.

Conversely, if there is complete consensus that there is no primary topic, under current policy we can still choose to name one "John Doe" and the other "John A. Doe" No. John Doe is ambiguous and must either be a DAB page or a redirect to one. That's the current policy.

(or several other options). Again, what specifically?

The choice would be based on reason applied to the several article-titling criteria mentioned in the policy. The choice of article title certainly depends on many criteria. Over eighty pages of them at last count.

Under the proposal, we would be straightjacketed into slavishly following a rule. No more than we are now.

If there was consensus that the second John Doe was the primary topic, under this rule we must title his article "John Doe" and nothing else; No. We choose the article title according to the article naming conventions. All of them that are relevant. Same as now.

we must not have a dab page. Not at a base name of a term which has a primary topic, if that's what you mean. Same as now.

Conversely, if there was consensus that there was no primary topic, we must have a dab page and no other solution will do. Yep. Subject to IAR and commonsense of course. Same as now.

This is a change in policy, not a clarification. How?

Using the example of New York, even if everyone were to agree that the city is the primary topic, under current policy there are still legitimate arguments for keeping things the way they are: conciseness, consistency, naturalness, to name just three (I'm not saying they would or should prevail in a discussion, but when enough editors put forth reasoned argument based on current policy, lack of consensus for a move would result. And that's the real issue. That is exactly what has happened. But at least some of these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the policy.

Under the proposed rule, the only factor allowed to be considered would be 'primary topic' ... No more so than now. It would just be clearer.

...and the result would be different... So I hope, yes. Very glad you think that! I'm not so confident as that, and there are other issues to address as well, but I am hopeful, particularly in view of the subsequent RfC that found consensus that New York State is not the primary topic for New York.

(I don't know if that's the motivation for this rule or not) It was the reason for my initial interest in clarifying WP:AT, and is still part of it, I make no secret of that. But I don't expect that it will be the only article title that it affects, not by a long way. The misunderstanding of the current rule is both strong, as this discussion shows, and common, as the last NY RM demonstrated.

that is not a clarification of current policy, it is a change.

It's certainly not my intent to change the current policy. There is no need to do that. We just need to understand it better.

For the policies and guidelines on which the above reply is based, see the short form here or the much longer one with examples at WP:SIMPLEDAB. Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand

I just had a look back at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Oppose and it seems to me that the majority of oppose !voters would agree with User:Station1 (who was one of them of course) that if the primary topic of John Doe is John A. Doe, but the article on him is given the title John A. Doe, then the title John Doe becomes available for an article on a less prominent John Doe.

It doesn't. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT reads in part The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it). The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. (my emphasis) That's the existing guideline.

And as Station1 points out, this is directly applicable to the NYS/NYC discussion. Many of the oppose camp argued that New York City, not New York, should be the name of the article on the city (as it is now). That is fair enough. But they then assumed like Station1 that this then mads the base name New York available for the article on the state.

It doesn't. The guideline is clear. But obviously not clear enough. Unless the primary topic of New York is New York State (and consensus has now been achieved that it is not), to keep NYS at the base name they need to argue for a very big exception to be made.

Which they still might do successfully. That's a different issue. This is just about clarifying the existing policy position. Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not participate in any New York move requests this year. You might want to strike the parenthetical in your first sentence. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Done, I stand corrected. Don't know what I was thinking! Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Examples

Although the example of Talk:David Zimmer#Requested move 19 May 2015 may not be directly relevant to the discussion, it still illustrates cases in which a relatively low notability subject becomes the primary topic of one or more WP:DABMENTIONs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrna Williams has only one entry and one redirect. Ralph Barton (disambiguation) has one primary topic and one WP:DABMENTION. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. My rule seems to work for David Zimmer, as it should... it's after all intended to just be a clear and accurate rephrasing of what WP:ATDAB and WP:DAB already say. I wasn't expecting it to be controversial. There's no distinction made between high and low notability articles AFAIK, if they're in they're in.

Ralph Barton (disambiguation) seems deletable as it stands but that would be silly, the redlink seems to concern a notable person so all we'd need to do to save it would be create a good stub at Ralph Barton (MP) (and we'd then MOSify the DAB by removing the extra link from that line). Apart from that, again my rule seems to work.

The keep verdict for the (now two-way) DAB at Myrna Williams also seems in keeping with the current rules, with our current practice, and (whew) with "my" rule. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)