Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Remove the sentence: this is often referred to ... "COMMONNAME"

Proposal to gradually retire COMMONNAME.

"Common name" was in use back before this policy recommended a survey of reliable sources. (Before June 2008). At that time common name (eg a simple internet search) was used unless the rules in a naming convention came up with an alternative. The hard rules were there so that for things like WP:NCROY to stop articles being titled Winter King or whatever, which are more popular in popular sources than reliable sources.

As it is now more than six years since "Wikipedia determines recognizability by what verifiable reliable sources in English use for the subject." was introduced into this policy, I think it is time to retire COMMONNAME, first because it is no longer an accurate descriptor and secondly because it is confusing for those editors who come from a scientific background where "common name" is a term of art. However as Blueboar has pointed out on this talk page COMMONNAME is also a term of art within the Wikiepdia community, so I suggest that the retirement of "COMMONNAME" is not done as in the Big Bang (financial markets) way. Instead it is done more gradually so that the community has time to adjust to the idea that it is not the most appropriate link to use and so stops being a term of art.

I would suggest that as a first step the sentence

• This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"

is removed (but leave the footnote). Then in about six months time -- or when there is a consensus to do so -- to remove the link "COMMONNAME" from the shortcuts box.

I favour the adoption of WP:UCRN for "use commonly recognizable names" as THE alternative -- rather than WP:UCN because UCN still "use common name" which is just as confusing as COMMONNAME "Common name". So I suggest that WP:UCN (a relatively new introduction an used on less than 1,000 pages) is removed from the shortcuts box ASAP.

-- PBS (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ill-advised fadeout scenario This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME" should be kept, whether or not the COMMONNAME shortcut is displayed. For me, the display of the shortcut can be discussed (I'm not not very clear on whether that would be a worthwile update), which is something entirely different from either clarifying what it means (should be kept without discussion) or suppressing/rerouting a shortcut that is probably still widely used, unrelated to its origin. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that the short-cut "WP:COMMONNAME" was poorly chosen. However, because that short-cut has been around for so long, it has evolved into a Wikipedia term of art... one that that I think we may be stuck with it. I don't think people are going to stop using the wiki-term "COMMONNAME" any time soon... even if we remove and red-link the short-cut. The term has become ingrained in our culture. More importantly, until and unless the broader community actually does stop using the wiki-term "COMMONNAME" in discussions, I think it would be a mistake to remove our explanation of what that wiki-term means... we need the explanation precisely because the term does cause confusion.

The reality is that it is going to be difficult to change people's ingrained behavior... About the best we can do is provide better (less confusing) short-cuts... and hope that the community starts to use them instead of the problematic one. Then those other short-cuts will evolve into "terms of art". If that occurs... if the use of the wiki-term of art "COMMONNAME" fades, then we can talk about removing the explanation (as there there will no longer be a need to explain it). But until that occurs, I think we need to keep it. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't think anyone anywhere is proposing deletion of the redirect. It is always to work, past uses to remain bluelinked and functional, future uses by those who like it to continue as now. The question on the shortcut (distinct from the explanation) is whether it should be one of the one or two shortcuts to be boldly advertised to new readers of the policy as the shortcut to use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact no, that's the other discussion. The discussion here, in this section, is about whether or not to remove "This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"" from the policy page. Never said this was going to be easy, splitting related discussions in two halves. Note that the more confusion is created, the less likely this is going to go somewhere consensus-wise, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues and I think most editors are capable of seeing that. Breaking it in two makes it easier to discuss the two issues separately. -- PBS (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Like Blueboar stated, "WP:COMMONNAME" or stating "common name" (or some other variation of that wording) to refer to article titles has become ingrained in Wikipedia culture. I certainly won't stop using it as long as it points to the policy regarding common names for Wikipedia article titles. And I don't see the phrasing as problematic either. So I oppose removing "This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: 'COMMONNAME'." Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Blueboar the green sentence explains nothing "This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"". The description is the footnote and I have suggested keeping it.

While it is a term of art at the moment, keeping this green sentence in the section is a self fulfilling prophecy and overemphasise it COMMONNAME over its more modern and descriptive alternatives. -- PBS (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Also note that above I suggested removing WP:UCN from the short cut list immediately. No one has commented on that. -- PBS (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed UCN per unanimous agreement on that specific question.[1] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear... I think we should keep the following explanation:

• Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME".

I think these two sentences are important. People see the term "COMMONNAME" repeated over and over in discussions, and we have to explain what that term means. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support transition to WP:UCRN for "use commonly recognizable names". The COMMONNAME thing seems way overused, and misleading, as if it trumps the WP:CRITERIA, when it is really primarily there to support recognizability. So using "recognizable" in the shortcut clarifies that. And the plural "names" suggests that the set of commonly recognizable names for a topic is not always a singular name.
• Given that anyone using the term COMMONNAME ought to use the shortcut link, I don't see a need for a sentence in this guidance page to explain that people use the term COMMONNAME. Regarding further steps, given the widespread existing use of this shortcut link, unless all existing uses are replaced, deleting the shortcut would leave a lot of dangling pointers, and so I don't think it is a good idea. I'm more ambivalent about removing the display of the shortcut link on the page. isaacl (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Given that anyone using the term COMMONNAME ought to use the shortcut link"... perhaps they ought to link it... but all too often they don't. What perhaps should happen and what actually does happen are completely different things. The fact is, the term is frequently used in discussions without linking it. Which is why we need a few sentences to explain the term. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, any unaware editors won't know to visit this page to read the sentence, anyway. (To address the issue of a missing link, a later commenter can always add a clarifying note with the appropriate link.) isaacl (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the term is going to be used, and it helps to have it explained somewhere. How we link to where it is explained is a secondary consideration. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In order for that explanation to be useful, it should either be in the same location where the term is used (such as expanding out an acronym on its first use), or linked to in that location. Either way, having the sentence within this article isn't very useful. Additionally, it's not a scalable approach: many guidelines have multiple shortcuts that are commonly used; describing all of the shortcuts in the text would duplicate what's shown in the little shortcut box, and give it undue prominence within the guideline (it's not a strong consideration in understanding the guideline to know what shortcuts are commonly used for it). isaacl (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The definition of what the link WP:COMMONNAME means is the section to which it links. That is also true for WP:UCRN WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Non of them need to be self-referential. The green sentence encourages the continued use of COMMONNAME long past its sell by date. -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that it is better to just explain what we mean by "common name". Very often, the common name of something will be natural and recognizable, concise, precise, and consistent with names of other things in the same field. bd2412 T 03:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Can't do that because it is already a term of art in many scientific disciplines (as explained in the footnote) -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Probably every term that we use is a "term of art" with a different meaning in some discipline. bd2412 T 18:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly many do... which is why our policies and guidelines need to explain what we mean when we use the terms we use. We can not assume that our readers will understand what we mean. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Accordingly, I think it is important to ensure the appropriate explanation is placed within the same comment where the term is used—this matches the need to explain the term when it is used. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that people are still having difficulty separating one term from another... and terms from the shortcuts they were derived from... so, let me try to explain again.

1. we have a term-of-art used outside of Wikipedia... "common name" ... In some disciplines this term equates to "vernacular".
2. we have a shortcut... WP:COMMONNAME ... which point readers to a specific provision of this policy.
3. finally we have a term-of-art used inside of Wikipedia... "COMMONNAME" ... this wiki-term means: "a name that is used (in sources) significantly more often than any other name". This wiki-term was derived from the shortcut, however (and this is a key point) it has taken on a life of its own. It has grown beyond the shortcut, and is often used in discussions without a link.

Now... these three things (the non-wiki term, the shortcut link, and the wiki-term) are not the same (although the last two are connected). This difference causes confusion. We can, however, at least limit the confusion... if we explain a) that they are different, and b) how they are different. I think the paragraph in question does so, but I am always willing to discuss ways to do it better. The point is this: not explaining will simply continue the confusion. Our current explanation might not get rid of all confusion, but it will at least help to limit it. The question is: can we do better? Can we explain the different terms in a way that will be even clearer? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, I don't think it important which derived from which, but if the correction is needed: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" goes at least back to mid-2002, before shortcuts existed, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is without doubt the main predecessor of WP:AT [2]

Please, don't "derive" something from something you're not sure about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, the "common name" principle for article titling in Wikipedia existed...

1. ... before article titling was called article titling (it used to be called "naming conventions" exclusively in the early days)
2. ... before wikilinks, namespaces, talk pages, section headers, direct links to section headers, etc. existed (no way the shortcut existed before the Wikipedia concept)
3. ... before a single guideline (in casu a predecessor of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)) claimed some exception to it for some years
4. ... before article titling discussions (I believe in the realm of taxonomy) brought to the foreground that "common name" might have a specific meaning in some well-defined contexts
5. ... before the "most common" vs "most recognizable" distinction was made, which were apparently perceived as synonyms in the early days.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood... I was saying that the current wiki-term "COMMONNAME" (spelled in all caps and as one word) was derived from the short-cut link WP:COMMONNAME... I did not mean to imply that the underlying concept expressed by the term was derived from the link. Obviously, the concept came first. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In my first contribution to this talk page section I wrote "... unrelated to its origin". Please again, the history of the "common name" principle and its (WP:)COMMONNAME moniker have little to do with this. They are widely referred to, throughout Wikipedia's history, continuing in the present, so that a "zero visibility" approach in the policy where the concept/moniker refers to is quite out of the question, unrelated to its origin. At least stop messing with Wikipedia's history, pretty please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis is correct that "common name" is used in both the earliest version of this page that is available in and talk page both article (2001), (2002). However the important date regarding this issue is June 2008 when Common Name no longer meant the most common name (without regard to the quality of the source), but instead morphed into "Wikipedia determines recognizability by what verifiable reliable sources in English use for the subject". As I said at the start of this section I think it is time to gradually retire Common Name because it is no longer an accurate handle and has been a confusing new editors since June 2008. -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME" is going to create more confusion, not less. That's why I called it an Ill-advised fadeout scenario. No plan, just some random step(s), clueless in its outcome.

Re. "morphed into "Wikipedia determines recognizability by what verifiable reliable sources in English use for the subject"." — No it hasn't. The current wording in WP:AT, first pargagraph of the UCRN section has Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. (bolding added), showing that both name and common(ly) are still part and parcel of explaining the recognizability bit. Same in the last sentence before the examples: concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability, again after the examples most frequently used etc. I can't find a sentence in the whole section linking "recognizability" and "reliable sources" the way PBS portrays, that is without using common(ly) or at least most frequently. So no, the whole premise is flawed, I see no plan, no agreement on what we want to get rid of, and even less on what would be an acceptable scheme to come to that vagely defined goal.

It's a bit hard to discuss when quotes are rendered incorrectly. commonly used names (linked to) recognizability is not by far on its way out, and it should be made clear that that is what is now meant by the COMMONNAME moniker, which also is not by far on its way out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly... If there was a realistic way to get people to stop using the term "COMMONNAME", and to instead use some other alternative that is more in line with what we mean (perhaps "FREQUENTNAME"), I would be more receptive to the propsal. However, I don't think that this is going to happen any time soon. The term is simply too ingrained in our culture. Removing all reference to the term (or "hiding it away" in a footnote) will not get people to stop using the term. The term will continue to be used no matter what we do. So, we might as well accept that fact, and at least limit the potential for confusion by explaining what it means. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Policy should document practice (Wikipedia mantra). It remains practice that people are using “COMMONNAME” to refer to the policy section currently titled “Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names”. So, the explanation belongs.

However, “COMMONNAME”, a shouty term that can be read as meaning the vernacular, or as excluding the scientific name, is misleading when misused, as happens. Preferably, shortcuts should be convenient mnemonics, not attempts at one one-word summaries. So yes, “COMMONNAME” should be diminished in prominence. But removal is too much while it remains in use. I suggest, instead of removal, putting the explanation into past tense:

Titles are often the names of article topics, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers a name that is commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is has often been referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME".

As past tense, the term is no longer implied to be recommended, but the explanation remains present and accurate.. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• "common name" and "COMMONNAME" *are* still widely used for referring to the UCRN principle, so no, that would be a "wishful thinking" approach disconnected from reality, without wider picture view. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

They are used clumsily. Clumsily used terms of art by the titling in-crowd create a barrier to newcomers. The wider picture is that simple, real-world-meaningful explanations lower the entrance barrier.

"Wikipedia prefers the commonname" makes sense to us, but "Wikipedia prefers to title articles using names, terms or phrases commonly seen used in reliable sources" may be more easily comprehensible to more people.

Wikipedia policy should not simply document practice. It should document best practice. It is not best practice to frame arguments using Wikipedia terms of art.

Perhaps we should here discriminate between, and separate, documenting arguments used by Wikipedians (use of the commonname terminology) and what Wikipedians usually decide explained in real-world language. Wikipedia editor vernacular should not be encouraged, and putting in the past tense is a small step in confining it.

I remain curious as to how you would describe a wider picture view. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To get rid of (part of) a deeply rooted concept one needs a broader picture on what one wants to achieve. I only see there isn't one. I can't define one currently, while maybe there is no viable wider picture on this fade-out idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Example(s)

To make this all a bit more practical: in a recent rewrite of WP:NCM#Compositions (classical music) I referred a few times to WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names,

• Using WP:COMMONNAME in a piped link:
  • "... article title strictly follows the common name principle"
  • "... only added to the article title when it is part of the common name of the composition"
• Without pipe, under a subsection title

  • See also: WP:COMMONNAME, ...

• Unlinked:
  • Subsection title: WP:NCM#Articles not belonging to a series: common name and disambiguation
  • "Common name always applies when ..."
  • "... only be added to an article title when they're part of the common name"
• Using WP:RECOGNIZABLE:
  • "... while the standardized format can take some license w.r.t. recognizability (...example...), that license to divert from WP:RECOGNIZABLE is forfeited once the standardized series format has been left"
• "recognizable"/"recognizability" unlinked:
  • "... weigh recognizability and serialization benefits with ..."
  • "... article titles without ... characteristics that may be highly recognizable to some readers ..."

Improvement suggestions? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to not change the policy. Anyone clever enough to know what "common name" means with regard to biological nomenclature will be clever enough to know that the term must mean something different when applied to the titles of articles. People are confused about every policy and guideline (with misunderstandings even about WP:IAR abounding)—fiddling with the terminology will not help, but would only generate more confusion. If there is a problem which can be fixed by removing COMMONNAME, please spell it out in a short paragraph in one place. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq. To critique: you appear to distinguish "the policy" from "policy". No one here now is attempting to change policy.People "clever enough" to know the specialist term do not include people familiar enough with the specialist term to get confused, and you ignore the larger problem with the association with wikt:vernacular.

That people are confused by other things is a very poor reason to not improve this documentation.

A simple paragraph: Wikipedia documentation should not redefine words for project-specific use. Eg. Policy use of "common name" should not differ from common name. To do so creates barriers to newcomers. The fact that there is a long and deep history of editors using a nuanced meaning of words justifies explanation, but this explanation should avoid reinforcing its use as a standard jargon.

Note that, as above, I do not support "removing COMMONNAME" from the text of the policy, but I support measured toning down of use of "commonname" in support of a transition to better wording for the intended audience.

A simple paragraph: Wikipedia documentation should not redefine words for project-specific use. Eg. Policy use of "common name" should not differ from common name. To do so creates barriers to newcomers. The fact that there is a long and deep history of editors using a nuanced meaning of words justifies explanation, but this explanation should avoid reinforcing its use as a standard jargon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Francis. Why do you think it preferable to pipe WP:COMMONNAME over piping Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names? I think the only difference produced is the hovertext? Isn't it better, for the hovertext of a link to policy, to include the policy title? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A series of rhetorical questions are not improvement suggestions.

  I see I needed to make distinction between "common name" and "recognizability" (BTW, the last one also refers to the first item of WP:AT#Deciding on an article title but that's not where the WP:RECOGNIZABLE shortcut goes) to make the NCM guidance intelligble. My point is (as is clear from the NCM guidance taken as a whole): "common name" and "recognizability" are two different concepts, a.k.a. not synonyms. Both concepts need to be understood in order to appreciate a particular naming convention (on classical compositions in the example). For those who are unclear about what these concepts mean (when they first read the particular convention), there are links to the AT policy page which explains both. The places linked to in this way should not obfuscate the meaning of the concepts.

  Re. Wikipedia should not give specific meanings to concepts widely known outside Wikipedia guidance. Seems like you're relatively new around here. Notability, objectivity, neutrality, verifiability, reliability, sources, shortcut, title, namespace, vernacular, convention, and whatnot all have their specific meanings in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Of course it is best to keep these concepts close to more general IRL concepts people can connect to. But difference or specificity are no obstacles for useful Wikipedia guideline concepts. "common name" is shorthand for "commonly used name". For all I know the common names guidance existed for years before someone discovered there was some tension with how the concept was understood in taxonomy, which is specific, limited, and easily explained to newcomers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The piping question is not rhetorical. You are generating hovertext more confusing that the full link. I suggest that using the link, page title and section heading, is an improvement. Further, I think it would be an improvement to not rely on shortcuts in any explanation. It is better for a policy/guideline page to be able to be read in isolation, without asking the reader to make frequent cross-references.

Perhaps we are simply on different wavelengths. You seem to me to be immersed in the jargon. I have been finding your use here of "NCM" to be frustrating. "NCM" does not occur on this policy page.

If "common name" and "recognizability" are different concepts, then WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE should not point to the same thing.

Your asserted needs of concepts to be understood makes me think that you think very few share your qualifications for understanding policy. I suggest that very few editors could give a decent answer for the conceptual difference between "common name" and "recognizability".

I'm not new, but I am trained to choke on jargon, as something that creates barriers for learners. Yes, "notability" is a corker, much is said about that at WT:N. Every other word you listed I think is used in line with real world expectations.

I don't feel that I am arguing with you, everything you say that I understand I agree with, but in places I find it hard to understand what you mean to say. "difference or specificity" I still haven't worked out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "hover": no, the stability of the link explaining the concept is deemed more important. [3]

"difference or specificity are no obstacles for useful Wikipedia guideline concepts" — in general, it is not a problem for a Wikipedia guidance concept to be slightly different from the IRL concept, or be slightly more (or less...) specific. Many (if not most) Wikipedia guidance concepts are in that case.

To which might be added: it is not so that these words refer to a single & unique concept IRL as opposed to the one used in Wikipedia. Most of these words (take "common") have a variety of meanings IRL, it is about singling the meaning out that is useful to explain some guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "hover"& stability

Yes, point taken. Template:Anchor example 1 "… from other articles and from redirects." provides the solution to satisfy both concerns.

I suggest improving your NMC examples by using the "[[Article name#Foo|…]] format as recommend for links not from the same page. ie not [[WP:COMMONNAME|...]] but [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names|...]], noting that the section anchor is "Common names". Odd, isn't it, that the anchors and advertised shortcuts differ? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion implemented [4] --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind a single section explaining two concepts (the previous section explains five...), nor that two different mnemonics, each for one of the two explained concepts, point to that same section. Don't see what the problem would be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I respect (and to some extent agree with) the opinion that people shouldn't use term "COMMONNAME" (or that they should use a different term instead).... but the policy needs to explain what actually is, and not what should be. The simple fact is this: people do use the wiki-jargon term "COMMONNAME"... a lot. And, as long as they do use this jargon term, the policy needs to mention it and explain it. In order to limit confusion, we need to explain the difference between the Wiki-jargon term "COMMONNAME" and the real-life term "common name". It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia "common name" largely corresponds with RL "common name", only the taxonomy-like jargon "common name" needs to be indicated as different. The taxonomy-like jargon is not a very large part of RL I suppose, otherwise it wouldn't have taken several years of WP "common name" before the difference was even spotted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Largely... perhaps... but not always. The problem is that the word "common" can mean both vernacular and frequent. These are often the same... but not always. To clarify the distinction for new editors, I find it helps to write the Wiki-Jargon term in all caps (whether I link or not)... to distinguish that we are referring to only one of the two meanings of the word "common".

To give an example, consider the following sentence:

• "Here on Wikipedia we actually favor the COMMONNAME over the common name".

As confusing as that sentence may seem to a new comer, it does actually make sense once you explain the distinction between common = vernacular vs COMMON = frequent. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not less confusing. Counterintuitive. Capitalisation almost never indicates a meaning shift IRL, IRL it's just a bad habit named ALLCAPS. No, oppose - need more enlightened ideas than that. And I'll continue to use the expressions "common name" (in a context of naming conventions), "commonly used name" and COMMONNAME as synonyms. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase proposal

I don't think there is much problem with common name being interpreted along the lines of taxonomy, as Francis says. I think there is a problem with "common name" being interpretated to mean oft used vernacular, and users looking to blogs or tabloids over better sources, or looking to google ngrams that don't discriminate on quality of sources. But this is not a big problem, because sentence case ordinary words don't get read as shouty assertive oneword summaries, like "COMMONNAME". I agree that ALLCAPS writing is a bad habit, and the popularity of ALLCAPSSHORTCUTS has caused this bad habit to become normal.

The self-referencing of COMMONNAME in present tense elevates this ALLCAPS term above "common name" and "commonly used name". Putting it in past tense pushes it down a notch.

NB. I am neither a fan of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and having it pointing differently to Wikipedia:Recognizability is a problem.

An advantage of UCRN it doesn't pretend to mean much. It's easy for policy wonks to remember, but non-policy-wonks will need to actually go read the policy text. Even better would be if the writer referring to policy quoted and interpreted the policy text explicitly, and only used the shortcut for piped linking. Even better again would be if talk page writers would stop using it all, using shortcuts only for personal use in the search box, and not add to the talk page jargon that makes it hard for newcomers.

So, regarding the sentence "This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"." It is an ugly sentence. What is referred to by the "this"? Wikipedia's preference? Consider writing instead:

This concept of names commonly used in reliable English-language sources is often referred to by the shortcut: "COMMONNAME".

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is a problem with confusion between this Wikipedia's use of "COMMONNAME" and "common name" meaning "vernacular name". It's only regularly encountered by those of use who write about organisms, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was disappointed that my attempt to move the footnote explaining the difference to the main text (for which I was thanked several times by other editors) was reverted. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Like the idea. Would probably write something like

This concept of "names commonly used in reliable English-language sources" is often referred to by the shortcut (WP:)COMMONNAME.

as a replacement for This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME". --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support; this would certainly help to avoid some of the confusion. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I could live with it. Although I think the term "COMMONNAME" has evolved into more than just a short cut. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• moniker (?)
• mnemonic (?)

Moniker is maybe a bit high brow (Beauty Shop: ma nigger???), mnemonic maybe not altogether the right term, but I think it might work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for this sentence. The section to which it links explains what COMMONNAME means and anyone who uses COMMONNAME without making it a link at its first mention in a section on an article talk page, I think ought to be ashamed of themselves and consider taking a Wiki-break, because their target audience is presumably editors who do not know about what COMMONNAME means. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

...what a thoroughly unhelpful blasé attitude. Afaik there's no rule on when to link and when not to in a talk page discussion (... or is there and you forgot to link to it?). All sorts of things happen in talk page discussions whether they're by the rules or not, whether good faith or not. Being helpful to fellow-editors beats telling people they should go stuff themselves if they don't understand, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Without a link the proposed sentence will not be available to explain anything. With the link the whole section is available to explain what COMMONNAME means so the sentence becomes superfluous. So one is not being helpful to fellow-editors if one does not include the link when using the word COMMONNAME for the first time in a section. This is true for all these capitalised links that people throw around. They are Wiki-jargon and it is considerate to link them for the first time as even experienced editors may not be familiar with that particular link (or may not have looked at its content in long time and wish to do so). It is far more troublesome for the person who wishes to follow a link to have to put it in a search box (and that effort is multiplied for every editor who has to do it) than it is for those who use the term to link it the first time it is used in a section. -- PBS (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You are missing an important aspect here PBS. The sentence isn't really for the benefit of those who don't know the policy, and are being pointed to it... The sentence is more for the benefit of those who already know the policy, and are doing the pointing. The sentence effectively says that we should use the wiki-jargon term "COMMONNAME" in discussions - instead of writing the non-jargon term "common name" - because the non-jargon term "common name" has multiple meanings (vernacular name and frequent name), while the wiki-jargon has only one meaning (frequent name). Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A bolder proposal

OK... Time to try something bolder... the entire discussion above centers on two related issues... 1) the fact that, many years ago, we made a mistake when we used the word "common" in this policy (since the word "common" has multiple meanings... which requires us to jump through hoops to explain which meaning we are using). 2) The fact that this poor choice led to the creation of the link WP:COMMONNAME, which evolved into the wiki-Jargon term COMMONNAME... and the fact that this link and jargon term is used heavily. It would be great if we could get people to stop using the term (and the link)... but habits are hard to break.

So.. let's address each issue separately:

1) The issue of poor word choice can be resolved by simply not using the confusing word. Every place we use the word "common"... swap in the word "frequent". No more confusion.

Looking at the policy... this will actually be very simple... with minimal change to the text:

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

That's it... that is the only change that needs to be made to the existing text.

2) The issue of getting people to stop using the wiki-jargon term is harder to resolve. I don't think they will stop any time soon, and as long as people do continue to use it, I think we need to explain it. However... we can probably get them to gradually use it less if we tell them that the term should be depreciated, and explain why. I would suggest a short parenthetical paragraph after the above

• • (note: This section of the policy previously used the word "common" instead of "frequent", reflected in the short-cut link WP:COMMONNAME. Unfortunately, this led to some confusion as the word "common" can also "non-specialist" or "vernacular" as well as "frequent". Editors are encouraged to depreciate this link, and to use the new short cut WP:FREQUENTNAME [[WP:<insert preferred shortcut here>]] in its place)

The goal of this parenthetical paragraph would be to encourage a transition from one usage to another... a transition that will not be quick. I think including this parenthetical explanatory note (and doing so PROMINENTLY in the text of the policy) is important to that process. We need to inform editors that they do need to change their word/link usage, and explain why they need to do so. Thus, I don't think this should be "hidden away" in a footnote that people will probably not read. In time, (if and when we see signs that people have indeed changed their habits, and there is evidence that the use of WP:COMMONNAME actually has been depreciated and replaced by WP:FREQUENTNAME... then this explanatory paragraph could be moved to a foot note (or perhaps, eventually, cut completely). But not yet.

I would also suggest rewording the section header to: Use the most recognizable name (again to eliminate the word "common")... and also replacing the short cut WP:COMMONNAME with WP:FREQUENTNAME in the list of shortcuts - this does not mean we would delete the short cut WP:COMMONNAME completely... let it exist for now, but keep it behind the scenes.

Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the first change as I think it is good idea. However I think link is too long how about WP:URN for "USE RECOGNIZABLE NAMES"? -- PBS (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose very long shortcuts that attempt, but are doomed to fail, to capture the nuanced text of obscure policy (WP:AT is off the radar for most). Instead, encourage editors to use English tailored to specific situations and the people to who they are talking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Use the most recognizable name, but prefer Use a recognizable name or Use a readily recognizable name. "Most" implies that other criteria are overridden by this one criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What Smokey said. Support "Use a recognizable name" or "Use a readily recognizable name". But B2C will be annoyed (see below). Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• NO PROBLEM... I have amended my proposal accordingly. I certainly don't insist on WP:FREQUENTNAME... that was just an "off the top of my head" suggestion to get us thinking. Blueboar (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you guys can't see how little it matters what the actual title of an article is, and can't see the harm of moving away from deterministic rules for selecting titles towards "anything goes" "using editor judgement", how it moves us further from reaching a relatively stable state with titles, or you don't care about that, I can't help you. --В²C ☎ 03:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I do see how little it matters what the actual title of an article is... which is why I don't see "title stability" as being an important goal. It can sometimes take several tries before we hit upon a title that really works well. Blueboar (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Title stability is not an important goal because it matters what the actual title is (we agree that doesn't matter). Title stability is an important goal because it reduces stupid and pointless discussions about titles that don't actually matter. Yes, sometimes it takes several tries before we hit upon a title that sticks, but sometimes that's when our polices and guidelines fail to, well, guide us. But often it's because a few refuse to follow policy and insist on using their "judgement". --В²C ☎

Anyway... getting back on track as to the discussion for this thread... It seems we have an initial consensus as to the first part of my proposal (anyone object if I make the change?). As for the second part...after thinking on it a bit further, how does this sound:

• (note: This section of the policy previously used the word "common" instead of "frequent", and this was reflected in the short-cut link WP:COMMONNAME. Unfortunately, this usage led to some confusion as the word "common" can mean "non-specialist" (or "vernacular") as well as "frequent". Editors are encouraged to depreciate this link, and to use the new short cut WP:FREQUENTNAME now encouraged to use one of the other listed shortcuts instead.)

This gets the point across without carving any of the substitutes into stone as the "preferred" replacement. After all... when you think about it, the decision as to which shortcut to use often depends on the specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this and this edit by Blueboar, it needs work or should rather be reverted. First of all, there is no WP:Consensus that the "This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term:'COMMONNAME'." name wording should be removed, as seen by the extensive debates on this talk page about the WP:COMMONNAME wording; certain editors repeatedly pressing for it to be removed does not equate to WP:Consensus. Secondly, the WP:COMMONNAME redirect still exists and there is no WP:Consensus to delete it; indeed, above, near the beginning of the #Remove the sentence: this is often referred to ... "COMMONNAME" section, I am one of the editors who opposed the WP:COMMONNAME redirect being deleted; I still oppose it. So referring to WP:COMMONNAME in past tense is bad practice. And so is using language such as "unfortunately" in this case and telling editors that they "are now encouraged to use one of the other listed shortcuts instead." Flyer22 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME" is equally encouraging, so do you support its removal? -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Equally encouraging? No, it's not. It's simply letting readers know of the most common name for the WP:Common name policy, not telling them, or implying, that they should use a less common name for the policy. I obviously don't support its removal. I can support one of the proposed rewordings for it above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"From now on I'm thinking only of me". Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way?" "Then", said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?" (From Catch 22). "This is often referred to [as] COMMONNAME" suggests that the reader would be a damned fool not to use that link. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Then again, I don't see the sentence in question as needed. As long as the policy continues to have a WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:Common name redirect and does not tell people not to use those redirects, or discourage them from doing so, then I don't much care if it that sentence stays or goes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bolder proposal not going anywhere

Further complication with even more monikers, as proposed by Blueboar, not near to a viable solution, not even an improvement, as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Um... If you look at my amended proposal (and the edit you reverted), I did not actually add any additional monikers. In fact, my proposal paves the way to getting rid of one... explaining that the moniker "COMMONNAME" is problematic and should no longer be used.

In any case... can you come up with a better compromise solution? We seem to all agree that the word "common" is problematic... but can not seem to agree on how to fix that problem. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well there's no consensus to get rid of This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME", see my first contribution to this section. Your proposal entails adding another layer of complexity. I oppose it as not nearly part of a solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... given that most of the objections to getting rid of that sentence came from me, I figured that any compromise that I was willing to make would quickly gain consensus. I guess I was wrong in thinking that. So... again, can you come up with a compromise? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[5] It's still up there. You still didn't react to my alternative proposal for the only word you seemed to object to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Um... Actually, I did react... I said I could live with it.

However, since writing that, I have slightly amended my view. I can still "live with it" and I am not opposed to your suggestion... but, I have realized that we were not actually addressing the underlying problem (the fact that the word "common" has multiple meanings and thus causes confusion). My subsequent proposal was an attempt to resolve that underlying problem (by changing to a less confusing word). Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't react to my alternative proposal for the only word you seemed to object to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Um... out of curiosity... what word did you think I was objecting to? Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Frequent(ly) has as many alternative meanings as common(ly). The problem is not with the alternative meanings: "wheel" and "war" can have as many alternative meanings as you like, even when put together the one after the other (or no specific meaning at all), "wheel war" has a specific in-Wikipedia jargon meaning to make it useful in the context of Wikipedia guidance. Wikipedia:Wheel war explains that (including listing such monikers as "WP:WHEEL"). There is no problem with Wikipedia guidance jargon having other meanings IRL, at least as far as the Wikipedia name is not counterintuitive. WP:COMMONNAME complies to that for many years now, and it is far from heading towards any exit or needing replacement. Its in-Wikipedia meaning needs a few words of explanation (like any other concept used in Wikipedia guidance), that's all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The phrase common name has been gradually marginalised in this policy section, the large change took place in June 2013 (diff). The sentence "This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"" is not needed to explain what COMMONNAME means or why it ought to be used. Instead the sentence is encouraging new editors to perpetuate its usage even thought it is no longer an accurate description of the section. The COMMONNAME link lost its meaning when this policy shifted from recommending the common name for an article tile to the name most prevalent reliable English-language sources. The fact that some think the green sentence is necessary, shows that the name of the link is no longer fit for purpose. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What is interesting is that I was the one who added that sentence. And now I am one of the one's arguing that we don't need it. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As you you point Francis that frequently has as many meanings as common, but I think misses the point. New editors from a scientific background are initially confused by the term "common name" we know that because we had to introduce the footnote to explain it to some flora editors. They were worried that Wikipedia was recommending the use of the vernacular name over the formal scientific name even if the scientific name was the most frequently used name in reliable sources. So moving away from the usage of "common name" must help make Wikipedia slightly less opaque for editors who are from a background in Natural History. If "frequently used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" in place of "commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" will help to reduce the usage of a confusing term then why resist the change?

Another option would be to rewrite the whole "commonly used" sentence to eliminate the "used"

• "Wikipedia prefers a name determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."

-- PBS (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, as the 2013 change you pointed to shows, the WP:Common name policy was already about the "commonly or frequently used name... ...as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources... ...because it is recognizable and natural." All that the 2013 change did, among other things, was take a portion of the text out of reference form. Of course the WP:Common name policy goes by the name most prevalent in WP:Reliable sources; Wikipedia article content is supposed to be based on WP:Reliable sources. The article title is no different in that regard. "WP:Common name" is still the name that I see most widely used to refer to the WP:Common name policy. And I don't fully understand all this hoopla regarding editors continuing to use that policy name. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The name of the section was also changed in June last year. For many years this policy did not mention reliable sources and common name meant usage in all sources good bad or indifferent. After usage in reliable sources was introduced into this policy (27 June 2008)—at that time the section section Use common names of persons and things and the guideline looked nothing like they do today—common name was no longer a very useful description for how to identify the most recognisable name, but it has taken many years to adjust the wording so that the term is no longer relevant other than as a link that no longer accurately describes the section. -- PBS (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia article content is supposed to be based on WP:Reliable sources. That does not need clarification in every spot of a Wikipedia policy or guideline that obviously concerns sources, especially since we already have the WP:Verifiability policy and the WP:Reliable sources guideline. You keep stating that the WP:COMMONNAME mention and redirect are inaccurate, no longer relevant, and so on. I don't buy that. That redirect has served well for years, well past 2008. Just because some people misunderstand Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is no valid reason to uproot a longstanding Wikipedia policy title and redirect, especially when the policy and/or guideline is clear to the vast majority of editors (experienced ones at least). As has already been mentioned on this talk page, it's often that many Wikipedia editors, including very experienced ones, misunderstand Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines; WP:3RR is one of them (look at the recent debates that have gone at that talk page). No policy or guideline can be tweaked so that all editors are always on the same wavelength regarding them. And to me, you and others are tampering with something that is not broken in this case. I won't be agreeing with it, unless it's simply to remove the WP:COMMONNAME sentence...since I see that as unneeded. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit clash) That is all this section is about, see main heading of the section and my initial proposal. It is not about removing the link from the short cut list -- that has already been discussed and rejected for now. -- PBS (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This section is also about Blueboar's proposal, which Francis Schonken and I have explicitly rejected. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And just for the record, I accept that you and Francis reject my proposal... although I am still not quite sure that I understand why you reject it (perhaps you can explain again?) Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Your proposal entails adding another layer of complexity." [6] --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how I have added "another layer of complexity"?

I ask because to my mind replacing the potentially confusing word "common" with the word "frequent" actually makes the policy less complex and confusing. I don't really understand why you think it has the opposite effect. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes time for WP:Newbies to learn Wikipedia ways; bending over backwards for them is not the answer. Furthermore, we all know that Wikipedia was quite different before 2008, and was less strict; it's 2014, and Wikipedia is barely like it used to be regarding a lot of things. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Revolution

Having explored other possibility all of which do not seem to have gained a consensus. Is there anyone who is still opposed to removing the sentence:

• This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"

-- PBS (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose this removal, and request that this proposal be made under a heading that clearly advises the community that such a proposal is being made. bd2412 T 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you oppose? and as the heading is "Remove the sentence: this is often referred to ... "COMMONNAME"" how more explicit can it be? -- PBS (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I mean the immediate heading, "Revolution", which is meaningless in the context of the discussion. bd2412 T 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Pardon? oppose as explained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Semi-oppose - I am absolutely willing to consider substitute language, but not a complete removal. As I have said in the sections above - I agree that the wiki-jargon term "COMMONNAME" causes confusion... and I agree that there are other terms would be better to use. However, the reality is that the jargon "COMMONNAME" has been around for too long to simply remove it. It is used so often that we can not simply remove it. Indeed, I think the policy needs to mention it, precisely because it causes confusion. For me, the issue isn't whether we mention it, but how we should mention it. If we could convince editors to stop using it, then we might be able to remove it... but until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Year Location Event" titles

For events - natural and man-made - if sources don't come to any special name for the event, the most common form (if not the only readily seen form) of the event title that I've come across is using "Year Location Event", eg 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, 2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests, 2014 Calgary stabbing. The only variations I've come across is that if the event is something that could happen more frequent than a year, the month is pre-pended, and in rare cases, the full date (as in some of the bombing attacks in the Middle East); I've also seen - but typically limited in use, of "Location Event of Year", but this is typically when that form is actually called out by sources.

As such, I feel that "Year Location Event" is a defacto style for any type of event articles that lack a more common name from the press.

I'm having difficulty arguing this point on Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, as a user claims that this is the most precise and concise form, even though it conflicts with the defacto standard. They have said that if we used that form, giving "2014 Parliament Hill, Ottawa shootings" that it implies that the shootings occurred throughout the year making that form imprecise, even though I've pointed out numerous times that we have plenty of other articles of this form for a singular one-day event and that I cannot find any counter examples that use this format above. I'd be less picky about this if there were a reasonable sample size of this form, but I have found none searching across a number of different areas (as best as one could), which to me means we have by practice standardized on this approach.

If anyone can prove me wrong in that the current form ("Year Event at Location") has even a reasonable amount of use, I'd appreciate that, but if not, should we codify what is basically practice with these names? --MASEM (t) 06:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

While what you described is a de facto standard, we should allow for reasonable exceptions subject to editors' consensus, and in my opinion 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa is a reasonable one. The catch is that the locations rendered using "comma convention" should not be used adjectively (see noun adjunct) as in 2014 Parliament Hill, Ottawa shootings, and such usages should be avoided whenever there is a reasonable alternative. About a year ago, there was a RfC to that effect somewhere at WT:MOS, and it may have been even codified somewhere at MOS, but I did not follow it too closely so I'm having difficulties to find it. Maybe one of participants has a better memory than me and could point it out? No such user (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I found two related RfCs, but they ended up without a clear outcome. Still, worth perusing:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic_names)#Commas_in_metro_areas (in particular, section "Other examples of incorrect usage")
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 150#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates

No such user (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The naming conventions guideline for "Year Location Event"-like titles is at Wikipedia: Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events, and more elaborately at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think all of the titles being discussed are acceptable policy-wise, so it really is just a question of editorial preference and consensus. Remember that there are exceptions to every titling guideline. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as it's a stated "soft" guideline, that's fine, with the understanding the comma if "Parliament Hill, Ottawa" form is used could be a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem has misunderstood my concerns. I did not realise he was asking about the difference between "2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa" and "2014 Parliament Hill, Ottawa shootings". The reason I appended the "at" is because of the comma, as No such user said. This is an exception to the usual use of "year location event", because the comma is required, meaning that we cannot use the form adjectivally. If that was your concern, then there is no dispute. I never said that "2014 Parliament Hill, Ottawa shootings" implied that the shootings took place across the year, in fact, that potential title was not even discussed. My objection was to "2014 Ottawa shootings". In the case of "2014 Parliament Hill, Ottawa shootings", the event is disambiguated by location, as these were the only shootings at Parliament Hill during the year. This means that more precise dating is un-needed. In the event of "2014 Ottawa shootings", however, neither the location or date is precise, meaning that there is no clear scope for the article. Like I said, the two titles I would support are "22 October 2014 Ottawa shootings, which disambiguates by date, or "2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa", which disambiguates by location. I favour location-based disambiguation in this instance because the location is what made the event so notable. The "at" is only required because of the necessity of using "Parliament Hill, Ottawa", to disambiguate from other Parliament Hills, and to make sure foreign readers know what is being referred to. RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am now wondering if there is a need for the title to specify which Parliament Hill is being referred to. Has there has been a shooting at some other Parliament Hill in 2014 (if not, then there is probably no need for disambiguation). It strikes me that this is the sort of detail that could be safely left for the lede sentence of article text... and the title could simply be 2014 Parliament Hill shooting. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There are other "Parliament Hills". It would absolutely unacceptable to ignore the fact that this took place in Ottawa. Titles are supposed to be WP:CONCISE, and encapsulate the full scope of the article. "Parliament Hill shootings" is not recognisable. Which Parliament Hill? Where is Parliament Hill? The title must represent the content of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree... The topic of the article is the "shooting". That is the key word. The rest of the title is simply disambiguating which shooting the article is talking about. The title does not need to disambiguate which Parliament Hill the shooting took place at if this was the only Parliament Hill to have a shooting. To try to illustrate... suppose there only one single shooting in the entire of Canada next year. We would not need to specify where in canada that shooting took place in the title of our article on that shooting... we could simply entitle our article 2015 shooting in Canada. Sure, readers will want to know the details (such as the town where the shooting took place)... but they can read the article for those details. The title does not need to include the details. Now apply this concept to the article under discussion. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In the slightly longer term people are more likely to search on the key words Ottawa (or Canada) and parliament and not year or hill as those are minor details. For example who remembers the year and the name of the hotel of the Brighton hotel bombing, or the year and where IRA bombed the Westminster Parliament, (Wikiepdia dos not even have a dedicated article on that bombing see instead Palace of Westminster#Incidents) or where and when the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings took place? -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's true, PBS. If the article was titled "Centre Block shootings" or "Canadian Parliament shootings", then there would be no need for "date" or "Ottawa". However, given that only one of the two shootings was in Parliament, this can't be done. "Ottawa shootings" on its own is too ambiguous, unlike "Brighton hotel bombing" (compare shootings to bombing, shootings are much more common). RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Grand Hotel. And I'm not sure anyone could be confused about where the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings were? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

WP:POVNAME and Nazi Party

The RFC is recently closed as supporting the current title Nazi Party. Would this affect the policy WP:POVNAME, which discourages colloquialisms? --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• What could be POV about calling a thing by the name by which it is almost universally most commonly known, and which was the name that it called itself? bd2412 T 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:POVNAME discourages "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." It does not apply to that title discussion. Even if it did, a local naming consensus on one article does not automatically mean that the policy needs to be updated. Looking briefly over the article talk page, it would appear that it is time for you to drop this thoroughly resolved issue. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That means no proposals to change policy? --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I answered your question. How you could get "no proposals to change" from my response escapes me. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• No, the RFC does not affect the policy. The RFC closure is fully in line with the policy. The title "Nazi party" is by far the most frequently used (ie most recognizable) name for the topic. It is used so frequently by sources that it is clearly the preferred choice. It is hardly a "colloquialism" nor is it a "trendy slogan or moniker"... and it would clearly be the preferred title under all our policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read S Marshall's closing statement there? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes... it was a very well reasoned closure statement (more than most). It is in sync with what the policy says, so there is no reason to change the policy to account or it. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Does DIFFCAPS enjoy community support?

Does Wikipedia:Article_titles#Using_minor_details_to_naturally_disambiguate_articles, aka DIFFCAPS, enjoy community support? As discussed at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_October#Sex_Tape_.28film.29, the RM at Talk:Sex Tape (film) contains evidence of discord. Are capitals enough to disambiguate in most cases? Do readers typing or following explicitly capitalised terms like "Sex Tape" obviously want that an article covering that composition title, not the general uncapitalised topic? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. That section says "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. ... Certain applications of this policy are often heavily debated." I agree that it's heavily debated. It's not clear what the text means when it says "this policy" as there's no policy statement there, as far as I can see. I do agree that it is sometimes done, and often objected to. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Certain applications of this policy are often heavily debated" I think confuses. I read it as saying certain applications, such as discussed in this second paragraph, are often heavily debated, and are therefore not to be considered dogmatic policy. Or does that sentence retrospectively weaken what you have already read in the first paragraph? "Sex Tape" seems extremely straightforward an example. Is this clearly disambiguated from "Sex tape", or is it "heavily debated"? Personally, I am uncommitted, but dislike this policy's unhelpfulness to even a straightforward example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the main point is that disambiguating by case alone is usually heavily debated, though sometimes done. I don't see any suggestion of a policy in that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So why is in the policy? Wouldn't it fit better at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. And reading on... Why is there a subsection on Conciseness under Precision and disambiguation? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't claim to speak for the community, but DIFFCAPS enjoys my support. I think that small differences such as a difference in spacing or capitalization are sufficient to distinguish two otherwise identical titles if there is no reason to expect readers to search for the uncapitalized version using capital letters, and vice versa. bd2412 T 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with BD2412. The "heavily debated" paragraph was added this year [7], and has no place in policy. Shall we add a similar clause to WP:USPLACE because that guideline is often "heavily debated"? Of course not, and this one should be removed. --В²C ☎ 19:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Without that, it merely says it's sometimes done, without fully reflecting the reality. In any case, pretty much none of WP:AT is what one would normally call "policy", since it's pretty unspecific about what we must do. It would make more sense to call it a guideline. Those who interpret "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail" as license to cut titles to the shortest possible do not receive wide support at WP. Dicklyon (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I closed a move review that is of relevence to this discussion. In my opinion, the addition of the second paragraph to WP:DIFFCAPS means the status of WP:DIFFCAPS needs to be resolved before it can be applied as policy. --Tóraí (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's not the status so much as the application. It has been noted in several move discussions that there are several categories of things, like job titles, recipe names, and common names of animals and plants, which readers may expect to be capitalized even where common name usage is intended. bd2412 T 01:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffcaps rewritten

Okay, fair point--the first part of that sentence had to go. Here's the revised version of the first sentence of that second paragraph:

This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other.

So, BD2412, Tóraí, Born2cycle, -SmokeyJoe, Dicklyon and any others--what do you think? The reason that paragraph even exists is I wanted to clarify (based on actual results of actual RM's) that consensus has determined that differentiating by caps is okay some of the time and not enough some of the time (for an example of the former, see the canonical Red Meat; for an example of the latter, see Friendly Fire). The difference is based in the notability of the two topics as well as how often we would expect the "wrong" capitalization to be used, and consensus determines that. Red Slash 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with that. Good work. bd2412 T 01:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• The JESUS (album) example is a red link. Would be better if the Red Meat and Friendly Fire examples were given since they are actual examples in practice. --Tóraí (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How to treat "like" as a preposition

"like" is a verb, an adverb, a noun, a conjunction, and a preposition. For prepositions no more than four letters, WP:NCCAPS discourages uppercasing them. I don't get the difference between Talk:Love You like a Love Song and Talk:I Like It Like That. Recently, there are many opposes in Talk:On a Night Like This, which is not yet closed. Can "like" be a special exception as a preposition, thanks to common usage of capitalization? (Off-topic: As also being a conjunction, "like" is a subordinating type, not coordinating, so I guess [as long as it's not a preposition] uppercasing "Like" is okay.) --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note... this is all about whether the word "like" in the title should be capitalized or not. I am sure that the MOS fanatics will disagree, but my feeling is that we should base the stylization of our title on how the majority of the sources (that are independent of the song) do when they discuss the song. If they normally capitalize the word "like" when talking about the song, so should we. If not, then we should not either. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Like" can be anything but a preposition; "like" is a preposition. The sources are not grammar experts. Capitalizing many words is okay IF they are part of proper noun, but capitalizing some others may not be due to formatting in guides outside Wikipedia. Also, there is no guideline or policy on how "like"/"Like" must be treated. Write an essay perhaps? --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually... according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, the title should be On a Night Like This - with the title of the song italicized. Unless there is some other name that the song goes by that is more frequently used. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Read MOS:CT, which doesn't mention page move proposals and article titles. --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, we seem to have multiple guidelines that relate to the issue, and they give conflicting guidance. I which case, I would say that there is no firm wiki-wide consensus (and the default would be to leave the title as it currently is). Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How do we stabilize these related guidelines and policies regarding titling pages? We have cases, like dot the i and Star Trek Into Darkness, putting them in tough spots without local consensuses affecting them. I did the RMs to test stability and effectiveness of rules. As it turns out, the whole community is inconsistent on spelling and capitalizing. --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

English is a crazy language. Hypercorrection and revisionism doesn't solve that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not say that the community is "inconsistent" on these issues; rather, I would say that the community consistently applies the styling used by the author of a creative work where that styling says something particularly important about the work itself. In the above cases, the first author intentionally used "dot the i" to invoke the expression that means to pay attention to small details like the dot over a lowercase "i"; and the second author intentionally used "Star Trek Into Darkness" to play with the dual meanings of "trek" as both a noun (which is expected in the phrase "star trek" and as a verb. There are many titles where the capitalization of prepositions or like nuances are of no consequence. Where they are of consequence, they should be used. bd2412 T 02:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Within the range of standard title cases, where the capitalization styling has no nuance or consequence, follow the MOS. Where they are of consequence, defer to predominant styling seen in sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a very different view... I think we should always defer to the predominant styling seen in sources that are independent of the subject

Note that the phrase independent of the subject is important... use in independent sources tells you that any non-standard styling is accepted as being part of the name of the subject (and thus more than mere "advertizing" or "vanity".) For those who are hardliners about the rules of grammar... don't panic... The reality is that the vast majority of independent sources tend to follow standard grammar rules and avoid non-standard stylizations... unless there is a good reason not to. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable being seen on the opposing side of that view. Wikipedia should be guided by its sources. I guess that I have been influenced by MOS aficionados sometimes encountered in RM discussion, but not well represented here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you assuming that the predominant styling is more-or-less a standard title case? Or are you assuming that few independent reputable sources will copy silly pointless styling? These questions of following source-used styling or the MOS are not really questions of grammar are they? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

They can be grammar questions... Independent sources generally do follow standard grammar/capitalization rules. So... when (in the context of discussing a specific subject/topic) a significant majority suddenly don't follow the standard rules, I think we need to pay attention to that fact. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What to do with works, like Smells Like Teen Spirit and other titles with "Like"/"like"? Should I also mention titles with "But"/"but" --George Ho (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Smells like Teen Spirit" would just look wrong. I think we're entitled, as a rule, to capitalize words where not capitalizing them just looks wrong. bd2412 T 18:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Like" in the title of the Nirvana song is a preposition with just four (not five) letters. Why should common usage (especially of unreliable sources) or common misconception make "Like" an exception to the existing MOS? --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Primarily because we are an encyclopedia, not the grammar police. The purpose of this project is to record and document what is encyclopedic in the world, not to establish and impose our own POV about what things should be called or how they should be presented. See WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTHOWTO. bd2412 T 02:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can't change the NCCAPS and the MOS:CAPS, then how much patience must I build before the future RMs that disregard these guidelines come up? As for WP:NOT, it (in principle) neither encourages nor discourages titling, spelling, and capitalizing. WP:NOT is body-related, not title-related. I would have used "content-", but content includes body article and page title, making "content" vague at best. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT is encyclopedia-related. There is no part of this encyclopedia to which it doesn't apply. bd2412 T 04:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't discuss specifically titling (unless I overlooked). --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Edit:I missed always number 8 of "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal": "Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible." --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• New discussion on this topic at WT:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. This relates directly to WP:AT, since it involves clarification of the relationship and often outright conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSCAPS (or WP:NCCAPS). It has been a recurring problem lately in requested moves and requires that we get beyond local consensus and look at the root of the problem. One solution would seem to be adding an explicit statement in WP:MOSCAPS that common name does not imply common style, and that the MOS should be used to determine style (including capitalization) in article titles. The other solution would seem to be adding an explicit direction that the style guide is only to be used for titles in cases in which the most common stylization of the title is unclear, which would be closer to the way we negotiate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please help establish consensus at WT:MOSCAPS. Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Lots of titles that use "and"

I have noticed that we have a whole series of articles about the views various religious faiths in relation to LGBT issues (for example Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism). Unfortunately, almost all of them fall foul of WP:AT#Titles containing "and".

To comply with the policy, the entire series of articles may need to be re-titled. And (as you might imagine) this is a somewhat contentious topic area, so both sensitivity and neutrality is needed. It has been suggested that we hold a centralized discussion to discuss the issue... So, I have started one. See: Talk:LGBT and religion topics#Article titles - centralized discussion. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For the specific article you mentioned at least I think the "Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources." part is well covered, certainly many sources do discuss the issues regarding homosexuality and the Catholicism. However, a possible rename to Roman Catholic views on homosexuality or Issues involving homosexuality in Roman Catholicism could be acceptable too, but are certainly not as concise. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

restoring archived discussion for close

Date ranges as titles

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.

---

There has been a rash of requested moves lately over several albums whose titles as given in reliable sources are date ranges, with the aim of adding disambiguation (usually (album) and/or the band name) to the title:

• Talk:1978–1990#Requested move
• Talk:1979–1983#Requested moves
• Talk:1982–2000#Requested_moves
• Talk:1983–1991#Requested move
• Talk:1992–2002#Requested move

Since it involves broader naming issues, I thought I'd ask folks here for their input on the general issue of using date ranges as article titles. Currently, as far as I can tell, the only date ranges that are used as titles (and redirects at that) are for articles on the decades of the 17th through 21st centuries, starting with 1600-1609. Otherwise, I am unaware of any date ranges that serve as article titles.

In the RM discussions, the arguments to add disambiguation are that the date ranges correspond to various events in history that are more notable than the album with that date (e.g., 1979-1983 was the First Thatcher ministry). Disambiguation is thus necessary to avoid confusing readers who might be looking for those specific events. A similar argument is that readers will see 1979-1983 in the search box and think it will be a timeline article about all the notable events that occurred in that time frame. Finally, there is the argument that the titles are not precise enough, because they do not look like album titles, and so adding (album) is necessary to identify them.

The oppose arguments are that a) these are the actual names of these albums, so using them without disambiguation would be fine, as long as they are not ambiguous; b) there are no other articles or topics on WP that use these dates ranges as titles (or even redirects); c) readers are highly unlikely to use these date ranges to search for events that happened then (i.e., the first Thatcher ministry is never known as, or searched for, as "1979-1983"), just in general, and because WP does not have any such timeline articles.

So with that as background, what do folks here think about the appropriateness of using date ranges as titles? Dohn joe (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think these titles are imprecise, and that the articles downloaded are then astonishing. Date ranges (four digit ranges) are reasonably expected to be historical periods defined by the endpoints. A commercial product is unanticipated and astonishing. A little more description is needed. Evidence in support of this can found in the opening words of the articles, for example: "1978–1990 (sometimes The Go-Betweens 1978–1990)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. Do a Google Books search for any of these "titles" and you will get many more returns where the date range in question is used to identify something else. bd2412 T 15:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course, lots of important things happened across any given date range. But those events are not actually identified by the date range. Again, no one calls the first Thatcher ministry "1979-1983". The point is 1) people won't search for an event using the date range very often; and 2) even if they do, we don't have any articles using those date ranges, nor are we likely to (unless someone plans to create the ~5,000 articles per century that would cover each conceivable range). Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Using the name of a topic as its title is never imprecise, unless we have another article on WP with a topic that is referred to in reliable sources with that name. The argument that an article can't have a name (alone) as its title because that name might be confused with some abstract concept that not only has no article on WP, but no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, is absurd. It would mean the renaming of countless existing titles. --В²C ☎ 17:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:AT instructs that "the choice of article title should put the interests of a general audience before those of specialists". Any suggestion that the relatively minute set of readers who would recognize "1983-1991" as the title of an album by the British goth band This Mortal Coil (and not simply a year range) are not a very specialized subset of readers seems quite odd. The general audience, even if we consider them in this case to be those specifically reading about music, are understandably likely to misunderstand the title as a date range... and per policy it's the general audience, not specialists, for whom we must consider titles.

    As for other titles that might also be afoul of this principal, perhaps some of them do indeed merit discussion; if so, they can be sensibly considered on a case-by-case basis as the community deems appropriate. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    • You're misinterpreting clear intent. You don't have to be an expert to recognize 1983-1991 as an album title; you merely have to be familiar with that album. That's all that we require of our titles. You don't like that, but that's an indisputable fact about WP titles. Any selection of a few dozen clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM will confirm. --В²C ☎ 19:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • You're misinterpreting the policy. It says "subject area". A specific album's title scarcely qualifies as a "subject area". Omnedon (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not referring to policy. The RANDOM test verifies actual convention, which policy is supposed to reflect, used to reflect, but because of a relatively recent change, currently does not reflect. --В²C ☎ 21:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • B2C: Yes, to have any reasonable chance of recognizing "1983-1991" as an album title you must know the name of the compilation album of the music of British goth band This Mortal Coil, and that bit of trivia is clearly very specialized knowledge. Wikipedia titling policy is quite clear on this: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of... a general audience before those of specialists." Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that even a music-centric general audience is likely to correctly interpret this title, by itself, as referring to an album name rather than misinterpreting it as referring more generally to a chronological period? Obviously there are a various considerations to be weighed here, but these particular titles run sufficiently afoul of WP:AT's clear policy directive, and are likely enough to be misinterpreted by a large majority of readers, that clarification seems quite justified. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Huw, to have any reasonable chance of recognizing (clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM) El Chavo del Ocho as a sitcom, you must know the name of the this 1970s Mexican sitcom, and that bit of trivia is clearly very specialized knowledge. This reasoning applies to probably more than half of our titles. It's not a good reason to change any of them, including this one.

          Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that even a Spanish speaking general audience is likely to correctly interpret this title, by itself, as referring to a 1970s sitcom rather than misinterpreting it as referring more generally to an 8 year old boy?

          If this "likely misinterpretation" reasoning justifies adding clarification to these date titles, then it justifies adding clarification to countless titles, including El Chavo del Ocho. It's all unnecessary disambiguation. Let us not hoist the responsibility of article leads onto article titles. --В²C ☎ 19:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

          • No, you're missing the problem of misinterpretation. That the current titles are likely to be actually misinterpreted (and not merely unrecognizable) is a key concern here, which is why your "El Chavo del Ocho" example is not equivalent. Most readers, even if unfamiliar with "El Chavo del Ocho", will not immediately misinterpret the name as referring to something entirely different than what it is. However, it's entirely reasonable to assume that practically all Wikipedia readers will misinterpret "1978-1990" as something other than what that article is actually about.

            Put simply: if it's likely that a great majority of our readers will not only fail to recognize a title but actually misinterpret a title then it probably is not sufficiently meeting WP:AT's clear policy requirement that we put the needs of the general audience ahead of specialists. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

            • At worst they will misinterpret it to mean an arbitrary date range that is essentially meaningless to them anyway. So what? How is that substantively different from an unrecognizable title like El Chavo del Ocho? And exactly in what context might this misinterpretation occur anyway? --В²C ☎ 21:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tried this SPECIAL:RANDOM test three times now, and each time I do it 70-80% of the results are recognisable. To continue: 40. Latirus fallax some kind of Latin genus, 41. Tala (music) some kind of Asian music, 42. Dunlap Exclusive a tyre? [totally wrong, a rapper], 43. I'm a Man Not a Boy probably a song, totally user-unfriendly [correct], 44. National Child Traumatic Stress Network what it says, 45. Pascal Pinon (band) band, 46. Utricularia sect. Setiscapella genus, probably plant [correct], 47. Øystein Drillestad a Norwegian bio, 48. 1993 Gamba Osaka season obvious, 49. Earl Cain an American bio [wrong a manga character], 50. DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Los Angeles Downtown obvious, 51. Dow Gardens gardens, 52. Henry Whilden Lockwood American bio, 53. Ferdows (disambiguation) a dab page, 54. Treehouse of Horror XX comedy film [near enough], 55. Mehmet Mehmet Turkish bio, 56. David Petrarca American bio, 57. The Texas (locomotive), 58. Alex Gregory English-speaking bio, 59. Too many men sports rule, 60. Lytico-bodig disease disease, 61. Warner River a river, 62. Irma Airport an airport, 63. Carpobrotus muirii a Latin genus named after a Scotsman called Muir, 64. Table Mountain Glacier, 65. Szilárd Németh (politician), 66. LithTech some tech company, 67. Cyclical tactical asset allocation what it says, 68. Scarlet Feather probably a book [yes, not super helpful], 69. Mingiyan Semenov Russian, 70. Maslinovo place in Eastern Europe, 71. Mikael Harutyunyan Armenian, 72. Daniel Ross (philosopher), 73. Stigmella gimmonella genus, plant? [moth], 74. Raymond Redheffer, 75. Gold Beach Municipal Airport, 76. Sandhar place in India [no, caste in India], 77. Baghdad Central Station.......... only a couple of my results are as mysterious as El Chavo del Ocho, and even that isn't that mysterious, I would have said Spanish language film book or TV series and it was. Unlike "I'm a Man Not a Boy" a TV series doesn't have a singer so can't be made easier with an artist name.

I'm wondering why my SPECIAL:RANDOM results don't prove Born2cycle's claim, but instead show the opposite - that most titles are recognizable to readers in that project area.

None of these except "Scarlet Feather" and "I'm a Man Not a Boy" compares with "Live in Dublin 2", "My Baby I'm Waiting", "Rap Out the Bag", or "Her Very Best II" which are the sort of pop product titles shorn of the most relevant bit of information which no pop fan can identify. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I started doing the same, my first random article was N (New York City Subway service) and the article says it is called N Broadway Local. After than I broke down in tears of laughter and couldn't continue. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. My first random article was Eklahare. Any thoughts on what that is? No peeking.... Dohn joe (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I cheated, but Taradi will most certainly interest you. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting. Looks like an IP vandal snuck into a little-watched article and got away with it. Until now.... Dohn joe (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, but it should now be moved to Dioscorea something or other. As per the project naming. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, except according to the sources, it doesn't have an accepted binomial name, just D. spp. I don't know how WP:FAUNA handles that. Plus, this seems to be an article on the food usage as opposed to the scientific description, which is an exception to FAUNA. I don't know.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WOW. Two years ago[8]. --В²C ☎ 20:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're counting titles of topics with names that are inherently recognizable (recognizable to those unfamiliar with the topic), titles of topics that don't have names and so must have descriptive (and therefore recognizable) titles, and titles that are necessarily disambiguated. Such examples do not demonstrate that we favor unnecessary disambiguation or descriptive titles over the name when the name is not inherently recognizable. My point is only about topics with unique names that are not inherently recognizable - that we don't normally disambiguate them. The challenge is to use SPECIAL:RANDOM to find topics with names that don't require disambiguation, and see how many of those titles or are never-the-less disambiguated or are descriptive, as demonstrated with the plain name either being a red link or a redirect to the disambiguated/descriptive title. Good luck with that. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Richhoncho (talk · contribs), N (New York City Subway service) is an example of necessary disambiguation. Of course titles are likely to become inherently recognizable when they are disambiguated. There is no surprise or dispute about this. The issue is about titles with names that don't require disambiguation because there are no other uses of that name with articles on Wikipedia. Keep going with RANDOM until you find such a title that is never-the-less disambiguated. Let us know what you find. I bet you'll have to go through hundreds if not thousands of clicks to find one, but along the way you'll find many like Taradi and Eklahare that are not disambiguated. That's my point - we normally don't disambiguate a title just because the name is not inherently recognizable. And if we did, we'd have to change thousands of titles. --В²C ☎ 19:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

В²C. I found your very recent post at Talk:1978–1990, where you said, That expression should be the TITLE of the article about that album BECAUSE IT IS THE NAME OF THE ALBUM and because that expression has no other use on Wikipedia. (my bold) EXACTLY the same applies to N Broadway Local yet you have a contra argument. I refer to my comments below, I am serious. Are you? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You say I have a contra argument to using N Broadway Local as the title? I don't.

My comments were exclusively about what I referenced: N (New York City Subway service). That title disambiguates N and is necessary disambiguation because N is ambiguous. Whether the correct title is actually N Broadway Local is entirely beside the point. Either way, we don't have an example of community supported unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm counting titles of topics with names that are inherently recognizable, and I'm saying that when I try SPECIAL:RANDOM the results I get are all meaningful except artist works with the artist removed. In any case it totally disproves your use of SPECIAL:RANDOM to prove that en.wikipedia is a minefield of titles unrecognisable to ultra-specialists. 78. N (New York City Subway service), 79. Eklahare place in Asia [correct], 80. Clan MacLeod of Lewis, 81. Association of Panamerican Athletics, 82. Siodło, Masovian Voivodeship place in Poland, 83. Merrick Systems, Inc. some US tech co, 84. Nora Fontaine Davidson American, 85. The Middle Men something meaningless, book or film or TV? [TV] 86. The Vagabond King operetta [okay I knew that one], 87. Rough Trade Live! Direct to Disc cd, 88. Urjanet, Inc. tech-co, 89. Basaragi Inam probably a place in Asia [correct], 90. Paolo Abbate Italian bio, 91. [Trachyderes maxillosus]] Latin genus, with a jaw by the look of it [correct], 91. Mesomedes ancient Greek, 92. South Australian Register newspaper? [correct], 90. The Greyest of Blue Skies (album) album by an anonymous artist who kept his name a secret out of extreme shyness...

So again, my results aren't the magical mystery tour you claimen.wp is. None of these was massively misleading or meaningless... except for The Middle Men and The Vagabond King perhaps, which if hadn't known would have been also. But neither have clear author/artists to make titling easy. I think you should at this point not use this SPECIAL:RANDOM argument again. You may also wish to listen to what HUW and Omedon have said about you mis-reading/intepreting WP:AT policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. Again, my point is only about topics that have unique names which are not inherently recognizable. Get it? It's only about those topics. Whether they comprise 99%, 90%, 50%, 10% or 1% of our titles is immaterial. However many it is, they are very rarely disambiguated for the purpose of increasing recognizability. I'm not going to stop making a point about how we title articles on WP, and always have, which is clearly true. --В²C ☎ 19:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• A date range does not meet "Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Some editors may argue that anybody looking for an article should find it but they fail to appreciate the other side of the coin, nobody should land on an article they are not interested in. They may also argue that there is no policy or guideline that says we have to consider mislead readers, but that’s not the point, it’s why we have WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR - because no guideline or policy is applicable in every instance. A continual shrillness of opposition to adding disambiguation (remember 20% of ALL articles are ambiguated anyway) to an article title to help readers just because we have "policy" or a "guideline" is more telling of the editor than Wikipedia.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you seriously believe someone looking for something other than the album is likely to enter 1978–1990 in the search box? And how is having that title be a redirect to the disambiguated title going to address this anyway? No one is suggesting creating a dab page at 1978-1990. What would we put there besides a link to the album? A list of 13 numbers? Objections to these titles are based upon absurdity piled on top of more absurdity. --В²C ☎ 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The absurdity is that we have one or two editors turning up to every music related RM (and probably every other RM too) who do not contribute to WP in any other way other than repeating "the same old" in opposition to editors who are contributing by adding or adding to articles on a daily basis. Furthermore, every time somebody raises a different view to these self-serving few there are questions and queries raised which border on harassment. A RM is a discussion to reach a consensus, not a game of pass the parcel or musical chairs. I shall, in future, listen to these sirens of doom, who think adding a small descriptive word to an article title will destroy WP with the same consideration they listen to me - I shall not be listening. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Perfect. When answering the questions you've been asked would reveal the paucity of reasonableness in your position, divert with an Ad hominem attack. --В²C ☎ 03:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The irony is that "Do you seriously believe.." "paucity of reasonableness" and so on is itself an attack, you constantly attack the intelligence, logic, knowledge, of other editors - which was one of the issues leading to your topic ban and your pledge IncidentArchive839#Born2cycle. And yet anyone clicking on your contribs since the topic ban will see what they see. Whether it is Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton or the recent interest in a Paul McCartney compilation, or whatever the specific incident is, the same pattern comes out.

Aside from this you seem to lack understanding of the difficulties facing mobile phone readers of wikipedia, which on a technical level should disqualify any editor without that understanding from titling discussions, or indeed trying to direct titling policy for an encyclopedia while not making significant article space contribs. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi. Not forgetting the accusation, "the Objections to these titles are based upon absurdity piled on top of more absurdity." is a attack on any editor who fails to agree with a certain POV. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Attacking what people are saying is not attacking the people saying it. If I say, "You polluted lemons with Parisian nucleotides", telling me that doesn't make sense is not attacking me (even if it does make sense). If you refer to me as a fool for saying it, that is attacking me. The essence of WP:NPA is Comment on content, not on the contributor. Statements about how weak certain objections are is commenting on content, not on the contributors. --В²C ☎ 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The irony of Rich's comment is the person pushing these moves seriously only pushes these pedantic title changes. Yet Rich feels people like me who oppose them are the problem. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 22:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Calidum. That's a double irony. I wasn't thinking of you, but if you think the hat fits... In fairness I am happy to ask you the question (with an additional one for you) which you may not have been asked before. I am sure you will be happy to answer (and depending on your answers I might be able to re-evaluate my position which is why the question is continually asked). Please note my questions refer only to music titles.

1. Without reference to any guideline or policy (which can change, as we know), why is it always a bad idea to add the name of an artist to a song/album article title?
2. Why should a general guideline take precedence over a specific guideline?

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't feel it's realistic to say someone looking for information on Margaret Thatcher's term in office will do so by entering a date range. I wouldn't type in 1939-1945 if I wanted to find info on WWII. I'd look up the name. As to recognizability, one could argue about half the pages on Wikipedia would be unrecognizable. For example, I doubt a lot of non-Americans (and many Americans) know who Spiro Agnew is, but would you seriously suggest moving that article to include US Vice President in the title? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 13:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Response Calidum. Please read and answer my questions. There is no disagreement between us in your comments above, but I am enquiring in regard to song and album titles only. This discussion is not about MT or SA. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I've answered question one. But basically, on Wikipedia article titles are only disambiguated if necessary and I see no reason to treat albums and songs differently, as several editors at WT:SONG have pointed out. As for question two, I'm not sure what specific guideline you're referencing, as WP:SONGDAB seems to me to fall in line with the overall guideline that disambiguation be done when necessary. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 14:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No you still don't see it. What some of you are saying is it's not the Done thing to disambiguate unnecessarily, whereas my question is what (in relation to songs and albums only) is bad about it? And no, nobody, not at WT:SONG or here or anywhere else has managed to answer. It's always dodge the question. All we get back is references to Paris, Margaret Thatcher, Spiro Agnew and the like. If your opinion is right, then it should be easy to prove without reference to non-song items, policy or guideline because it is logical, commonsense and clear. If you don't mind I'll return to my second question and songdab on your talkpage to keep the primary discussion on track. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Asking if someone is being serious is not an attack. Pointing out that another's position is lacking reasonableness is not an attack. If you have anything substantive, not just more ad hominem attacks, to contribute here, I'll be happy to respond further. --В²C ☎ 19:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would definitely expect an unadorned date range to point to an article summarizing the historical events that took place withing that date range... and would be surprised to end up at an article about a music album. When a date range is used as the "official" title of something else (a book, movie, music album, etc) I think it needs to be disambiguated, so that readers better know what the article is about. If there were to be a notable compilation of Mozart sonatas, published under the album title "1782-1791", I think it quite reasonable to disambiguate our article title as 1782-1791 (Mozart compilation) or something similar. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, Blueboar, but let me ask: what would we be disambiguating from? There are no other topics on WP with these date ranges. Again - events that occur in these date ranges are rarely, if ever, identified or sought by those dates ranges; people, including our readers and editors, use the name of the event in question to search for that event. So what are we disambiguating from? This is not about what we would expect when someone thrusts a bare date range in our face (when does this happen?), but what actually happens when our readers and editors use the encyclopedia. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree... this is all about expectations. That's what the "principle of least surprise" is all about. We have to remember that not all readers come to Wikipeida with a specific topic search in mind... there are those who simply surf Wikipedia for interesting articles to read. The typical surfer will expect that an article with a non-disambiguated date range as its title will be a summary of the historical events that occurred during that date range (I certainly would expect that). They will be surprised to end up at an article about something else (a book, movie, music album, etc). On the other hand, that same surfer will not be surprised to end up at an article about something else if our article title is disambiguated (because the disambiguation tells them what the article is about). Meanwhile, a reader who is not surfing... but looking for an article about a specific book, movie, music album etc (one that uses a date range as its title) will still be able to find the article they are looking for, again because the disambiguation makes it clear what the article is about.

In these cases, I think the non-disambiguated title should be reserved for a potential article on historical events... while other articles can take a parenthetical disambiguation format Date-Date (disambiguation). Then everyone knows what to expect. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) Why reserve a title for an article that will likely never be written? There are nearly 5,000 potential date-range titles per century, and to date, the only ones that have been created are the "decade ranges" from 1600-1609 to the present; and 2) why punish the reader who actually knows the name of these albums (having seen them in other reliable sources), types "1978-1983" into the search box, and hits "enter", only to be sent to a search results page - not even a regular dab page? I understand that there are logical misgivings about the current setup, but do you see the potential for real-world harm to actual users of the encyclopedia? Dohn joe (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not "punish" the reader who is looking for info on (for example) the Go-Betweens' album 1978-1990 to have that article at the disambiguated title 1978-1983 (Go-Betweens album)... the disambiguated title will still show up as one of the first few entries in the search box.

No one is ever hurt by disambiguation... but if even one reader can potentially be aided by disambiguation, then isn't it worth while?. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But I'm saying people will be hurt in this case. Someone who types the album title "1978-1983" and directly hits "enter", without looking at the search box - which is a very common practice - will be misdirected away from the article they're looking for, and not even to a dab page, but to an unorganized search results page. Sending those people to a search results page (again, not a dab page) instead of directly to the article they want is an actual harm, wouldn't you agree? Dohn joe (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

With due respect, Dohn joe, WP can't legislate against stupidity. Best we can do is assist the people to find the article they are looking for and if they are interested in the Go-Betweens they will now find this article, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

One reason for disambiguation is to help readers find the article they are looking for... but another reason is to help readers distinguish topics, and weed out the articles on topics they are not interested in. By disambiguating the article on the Go-Betweens album, we let those readers who are not interested in the Go-Betweens (and are perhaps interested in history) know that the article in question isn't what they are looking for. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of disambiguation, and it can be helpful. But my question was whether you recognize the reverse. By removing the album title from article space, we would be making it impossible for the people who type the actual common name of the album to go directly to the article we know they want. And again, not even to a dab page, but to an unorganized search results page. As far as I know, this is unprecedented on WP. To borrow your phrasing, if even one reader is harmed by removing these titles from article space, isn't it worthwhile to keep the status quo? But let's start with the underlying question again - do you recognize the harm that this change would cause? Dohn joe (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry D j but asking this question is fantasy, no one in a million years is going to "type" the string "1.9..7..9..–..1..9..8..3.." and press enter because no one will ever remember such a non-notable string of years. What they'll do is enter the band name and make a guess at one of the years, which may not work because we're busy hiding band names with religious fervour. What was you answer to Blueboar's nail on the head "we let those readers who are not interested in the Go-Betweens (and are perhaps interested in history) know that the article in question isn't what they are looking for." - I can't see your response to that point. What is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I understand the purpose of disambiguation, and it can be very helpful. My question was to Blueboar, who presumably agrees that people who read about an album titled "1979-1983" in, say, The Rolling Stone Album Guide, may very well see that title and type it into the search box and hit enter. No guesswork or memory involved. My reality-based question, again, is whether Blueboar recognizes the harm to those readers if we remove these titles from article space. Dohn joe (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And why, should Bauhaus fans be treated any better or different than others who may be interested in other subjects, including, but not exclusively:-

• The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party, 1979-1983
• The Third Unheard: Connecticut Hip Hop 1979-1983
• Grandmaster ( flashback 1 1979 -1983 )
• Classic Material Edition#1 Part 1 (1979-1983)
• Patrol Boat (1979–1983)
• The Wadi El Ḥasā Archaeological Survey, 1979-1983
• Budgetary strategies for fiscal years 1979-1983
• Nigeria: Shehu Shagari's Presidency 1979-1983 - An Appraisal
• Not forgetting First Thatcher ministry 1979-1983.

And in answer to your question, anybody who has read about the album in RS will find it just as easy or easier at 1979-1983 (Bauhaus album) or similar. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you've missed the question as well. The question, once again, is based on the following very likely circumstance:

1) someone picks up or reads online Spin magazine;

2) this person sees the Bauhaus album called "1979-1983";

3) this person goes to WP, types "1979-1983" in the search box, and hits enter;

4a) this person currently gets taken straight to the album article, and is happy; or

4b) this person gets taken to a search results page, is forced is to hunt out the album article, and is sad.

The question is whether we recognize that we are hurting the WP experience for some number of reasonable readers if we allow 4b) to come to fruition. Dohn joe (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I understood the question quite clearly, in fact I am going to reword it slightly. A man wants to cross the road (1) to buy a newspaper (2), walks out into the middle of the road without looking (3) and is run over and killed by a truck (4a/b). Should we ban trucks? Now you know why it is not worth answering. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Blueboar? Dohn joe (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would ban Newspapers.... then the fellow would not have been crossing the road in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Oh... wait... you are asking if I have something else to say? Nah... stated my opinion... Not going to change it. Disambiguation does not harm anyone and helps many. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So, just to be clear.... Your position is that someone who follows the path I laid out above and winds up at a search results page will not be harmed, wiki-speaking? Dohn joe (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear... my position is that no one is harmed by disambiguating these titles, and many people will actually be actually helped by doing so. Thus, I support disambiguating them. 'Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. But hey - that's WP for ya.... Dohn joe (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What a complete time sink and distraction from article space... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Disambiguate date ranges – to titles that are "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject", as the precision criterion suggests for a good title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per the precision criterion per Dicklyon, and per the least astonishment criterion. Adding "(album)" or "(The Foobars album)" is a good way of disambiguating. -sche (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguate date ranges – to titles that are "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject", as the precision criterion suggests for a good title. verbatim as User:Dicklyon In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguate date ranges when disambiguation is required - when there is more than one article to which the given date range may refer. If there is only one article to which the date range may refer, it's just silly unnecessary disambiguation contrary to normal titling on Wikipedia to disambiguate the title of that article, and then redirect the date range in question to that article anyway. When there is only one article on WP to which that date range refers, then the date range itself is "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject", by definition. --В²C ☎ 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is an "Oppose" in context of the 3 above effectively "Support". It would have been helpful if it had been couched in that way. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, support disambiguation when disambiguation is required: "when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia". That's the Wikipedia way. --В²C ☎ 00:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As regards "the Wikipedia way" that again is a recurrence of one of the issues in IncidentArchive839#Born2cycle your pledge, to try and consider that your way is not necessarily "the Wikipedia way". The above comment also shows that you are still reading "topic covered by Wikipedia" as "standalone title existing in Wikipedia" despite several editors on this page again indicating that is not. Further you have been given copious examples of dozens of "topic(s) covered" for 1978–1990 1979–1983 (First Thatcher ministry, 1979–83 Eastern Australian drought), 1982–2000 (South Lebanon conflict), 1983–1991 (82nd Aviation Brigade), 1992–2002 (Clipsal Powerhouse), these periods are all "topics covered" in article body, but not titles. This has been rehearsed many times. WP:DAB states clearly that "topic covered by Wikipedia" is a topic covered by Wikipedia in article body not in title-space only. A title is not a topic. A topic is not a title. If you intend to continue to almost exclusively operate in Talk pages of guidelines and editing guidelines rather than contribute significantly to article space it is necessary to take onboard the distinction between "topic" and "title". They are not the same thing. Do you understand this? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a totally unreasonable way to interpret those words, but luckily we have WP history to find out what it has always meant. Here is the WP:D lead from 2003:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflict that occurs when articles about two or more different topics have the same natural title. [9]

That's the Wikipedia way (not B2C's way). --В²C ☎ 05:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No that's the way Wikipedia was in 2003, that's 11 years ago. If your point is that you are making a stand or some kind of rearguard action for a wholly title based approach to disambiguation, and that you disagree with WP:DAB as it is now, then fine but I suggest you make this clear. This link back to 2003 confirms concerns about your frequent citation of the WP:UNDAB essay instead of citing WP:DAB guidelines in RFCs and RMs, and supports previous suggestions that that essay should be userified as your WP:YOGHURT essay was. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the narrow interpretation of WP's disambiguation mechanism. But there's still the precision criterion to consider, which is broader. Even if there is no other article that might go by the same title, a good title will be "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject"; a date range is not that, even if someone titles a work with it. The bare date range strongly suggests a topic this is NOT the article's subject, and is therefore not precise enough. Fixing this kind of ambiguity can also be called disambiguation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If that was once the way, it was a mistake. Readers need titles to disambiguate from, to precisely identify, the topic covered from any other topic that the reader might reasonably expect to be covered by Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I already said this below, but to try and clarify: a title must distinguish its subject from other subjects. Note that the "precision" criterion which states this does not talk about other Wikipedia articles. It talks about other subjects. Not all subjects have Wikipedia articles. A range of dates as an article title for an album does not distinguish its subject (an album) from other subjects. Omnedon (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe, indeed it was that way, and not just in 2003. That was just a random version I selected from before I started editing, to correct User:In ictu oculi's claim that it was "my way". The more ambiguous wording is relatively new. And the original wording was no mistake. Despite the disruptive efforts of a few, it still accurately reflects how most of our articles are titled and disambiguated. And it keeps titles simple, predictable and not subject to constant questioning, like this current debacle about a handful of date ranges each of which is the natural title for only one article on WP. What a colossally idiotic waste of time. There is no record of any users who are allegedly helped by such improvements actually complaining about insufficiently descriptive or insufficiently precise titles. The result of loosening up the wording at WP:D and WP:AT, primarily to rationalize the peculiar penchant of some to hoist upon article titles the lead's responsibility to describe the topic, has been a growing RM backlog, largely filled with nonsense like this, seemingly endless and definitely pointless arguing that has driven away probably scores of good editors - and no improvement to WP. It's really quite insane, and it's only getting worse. --В²C ☎ 21:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Irony of ironies -- B2C, of all people, complaining about endless and pointless arguing, and driving away editors, and wastes of time. B2C, I am asking you once again to be more tolerant of the views of others and not describe them with words like "idiotic", "nonsense", "insane", and so on. Omnedon (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, help me understand then. Check out the history of 1978–1990. Created in 2007... 7 years ago. Check out its talk page; empty except for this RM proposal. Number of complaints about the title in seven years: zero. Amount of evidence that a single soul was ever misguided by this title: zero. Now look at how much yammering there is about it here, on its talk page, and the other three. How is that not idiotic, nonsense and insane? To what end? At the end of the day, what gets accomplished by such a move? Who benefits and how? What is the point here? How is this not the epitome of pointless?

Now, if this was an anomaly, that would be one thing. But WP:RM is replete with similarly pointless (unnecessary disambiguation) proposals. If we allow this to continue, the supply of titles that "could be improved" (supposedly) by being more descriptive is practically endless. That's what makes the problem of such proposals significant. That's what makes them frivolous. They're just time wasters.

You may disagree, but I spend a lot of time trying to pull in the opposite direction - so we have more stability in titles and therefore less time spent on pointless RM discussions. Doing that is not pointless, because the goal is a benefit to Wikipedia - a much smaller RM backlog and thus more time for editors to edit.

If productive time spent on Wikipedia is a forest then RMs proposing unnecessary disambiguation are fires, and I'm a fireman. Like a real world fireman, I don't actually produce much very often, and sometimes I even have to back burn, but the long term result is less damage to the forest. --В²C ☎ 01:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Understand this: some editors have a different view of titling, and the benefits to readers, than you have. Some feel that the title "1978-1990" is a bad article title and needs to be improved. It's illogical to argue that because this was not disputed years ago that it is therefore pointless to dispute it now. Please stop insulting those that disagree with you. Especially when you are known to argue and argue and argue about titles that have been discussed over and over and over. Omnedon (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

1. How is "idiotic" "nonsense" "insane" consistent with your recently expired topic ban and User:Born2cycle/pledge?

2. In answer to the question. (A). No readers used mobile phones to read/navigate en.wp in 2007, wheras in 2014 mobile phone users are the majority of popular culture article readers (so I saw at Village Pump or somewhere 6 months ago, and I believe it). (B) some of these date range albums have had "(album)" removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Omnedon, I understand a few editors have a different view of titling. That understanding doesn't answer any of the questions nor does it address any of the points I made.

IIO, 1 - That's avoiding through deflection. Lame.

2 - I've used WP via iPhone since 2008 and have never had any issues with insufficiently descriptive title. I don't know if anyone has ever had such an issue. I think you're making it up. Prove me wrong, please. --В²C ☎ 02:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

B2C: You suggest that a certain "number of complaints" from readers must accrue before we should be allowed to consider improving a title? I think you know that that's not how things work here. In cases where a title may be problematic, we act by considering ways to improve it... and contrary to your loud (and insulting) statements that this is all simply pointless idiotic yammering, clearly many editors recognize that these titles are indeed potentially problematic for readers, so improving them is a sensible thing to consider. Please respect that. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Huw, that's not what I'm suggesting. However, since so many moves are proposed on the grounds that the respective titles are supposedly insufficiently descriptive or too ambiguous, and that causes user problems, there should be some evidence of that problem actually existing. Remember, the only reason we disambiguate at all is because we can't give two articles the same title. It's a technical limitation. If not for that technical limitation, we would not even need to have WP:D. But moves like these regarding the date ranges are predicated on the belief that there is some inherent problem with titles that might be used to refer to some other topic. What exactly is that problem? Where is the evidence that there is ever a reader-user problem with any ambiguous title? --В²C ☎ 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support disambiguating date ranges that don't refer to a date range. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per Dicklyon's comment. I think there is a fundamental issue here, in that this sentence is being used in two different ways: "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." This does not say, distinguish it from "other article titles", but "other subjects". That's not necessarily within the context of Wikipedia itself. No, there may not be another article on Wikipedia using the title "1978-1990", but that's not the point. That article title does not distinguish its subject (the album) from a range of dates. Thus it is not sufficiently precise. Omnedon (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguate Most readers, from almost any standpoint except the very specialist, will expect the link underlying "1979–1983" to be a year range. Any subject whose name may lead to ambiguity (because it's not what it appears on the surface) needs to be disambiguated, whether it be "1979–1983", "N" or "Razorfish". To filibuster on the basis that a work title that looks like a date range is unambiguous because there are no other entries of the same title is taking the mickey. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per Dicklyon who said, "date ranges – to titles that are "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject", as the precision criterion suggests for a good title." Irrespective of any guideline, there is no compunction to avoid precision. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Do not disambiguate, per WP:AT and WP:DAB. WP:DAB says to consider disambiguation when a term refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia, which means "either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject." WP:AT says that for precision, we use a title which is "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." The key word here, of course, is subject. Except for these album articles, these date ranges are not a subject of any article. They're facts, descriptions possibly, something you'd find in an infobox. But they're not a topic or a subject of an article. This happens elsewhere in WP with regularity. "One might expect", without context, that Sixteen Tons would be about a measure of weight, that Wednesday Morning, 3 AM or 4:20 would be about a particular time of day, or that 98 Degrees or Fahrenheit 451 are about temperature - or that 1983-1991 is about a date range. But in actuality - none of these random measures would be subjects of an article if they weren't subjects of the articles where they are. In other words, the plainest way to state the case is: there's nothing here to disambiguate from. Dohn joe (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please strike Sixteen Tons, 98 Degrees, Wednesday Morning, 3 AM as examples per WP:DIFFCAPS, and strike 4:20 because it like 1978–1990 fails recognisability and therefore we don't use it.

So your one example is claiming 1978–1990 is equivalent to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451? It's not, please look in Google Books and then strike that as a relevant comparison too. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you prefer, try 16 tons, 98°, Wednesday morning 3am, and, yes, 4:20 (all valid, undisambiguated redirects to undisambiguated titles (except for 4:20 - an undisambiguated redirect to a disambiguated title)) and then address the substantive points. Dohn joe (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, what is the obvious problem with what you've just asked? (aside from 420 (cannabis culture) being disambiguated I mean) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC) My bad on 4:20, although it itself is undisambiguated, which was the main point. Clarified above.) Dohn joe (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lack of directness, perhaps? Ignore the rest, and please explain how "1983-1991" is the subject of any article besides the album article, as called for by WP:AT and WP:DAB. (This is not necessarily just for In ictu to answer - I would like to hear thoughts on this from anyone.) By the way, it's not like date ranges can't be be subjects of articles. As I noted above, there are ~45 date ranges which serve as redirects, to the decade articles from 1600-present. In that case, the ranges themselves are the subject of the article. The same cannot be said of the ranges at issue in these RMs, or date ranges in general. Dohn joe (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No lack of directness isn't the problem, the problem is that the discussion here at Wikipedia talk:Article titles is about article titles not WP:Recognizability of redirects. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again: Ignore the rest, and please explain how "1983-1991" is the subject of any article besides the album article, as called for by WP:AT and WP:DAB. Not an infobox fact, not a WP:PARTIALTITLEMATCH, but an actual subject of an article. (This is not necessarily just for In ictu to answer - I would like to hear thoughts on this from anyone.) Dohn joe (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I already was ignoring them, as I said, they are redirects. It would help if you struck them.

Re (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.) these date ranges are minor subjects of the articles that treat them, yes, the time period is as much a subject for the other articles as for e.g. the Bauhaus album:

This article is about the Bauhaus compilation album. For the time period 1979-1983 in Britain, see Conservative Government 1979-1983. For the time period 1979-1983 in Australia, see 1979-1983 Eastern Australian drought. For the Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark album, see Peel Sessions 1979–1983. For Stones Throw Records album, see The Third Unheard: Connecticut Hip Hop 1979–1983.

• Disambiguate As others have rightly noted above, Wikipedia's precision criterion calls for a title to be "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject"... and the titles of the albums in question don't meet this criterion, regardless of whether or not their titles unambiguously identify the article within the English Wikipedia. In this case, where the titles are almost certain to be not only unrecognizable to most readers but actually misinterpreted by most readers, clarifying the titles is a sensible improvement (and inline with WP:AT's guidance to favor a general audience in matters of titling). ╠╣uw [talk] 18:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Do not disambiguate when there's nothing to disambiguate from, which all these proposed moves fail at. People do not randomly come across articles. Nobody would type in 1979-1983 to get anything but the album. So they should find the album there. Red Slash 21:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Red Slash you say "People do not randomly come across articles" - you've said it before, and you say this with conviction, fine, but what's the factual basis of your conviction? Because the majority of editors here evidently believe the opposite, that people do. Let's say you're searching for "Bela Lugosi spy" , then 1978-1990 comes up as the 4th hit between The Phantom Creeps and Ghosts on the Loose. So is it possible for a person looking for "Bela Lugosi spy" movie to "randomly come across" the Bauhaus compilation? Obviously yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar examples for all the other albums; "Jack Kerouac bachelor London" brings up 1978–1990 before 1922 in literature. "Marcel Jacob France" brings up 1933 Grand Prix season first but also 1982–1992 5th. "holocaust jeweller missing" brings up 1983–1991 before Israelitisches Familienblatt. "batman cowgirl" brings up Pistolera but also 1992–2002, and so on... This is separate from the more important issue of autofill, try part-entering these years in autofill top right search box, and see what else comes up. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In my search, I get:

• The Phantom Creeps The serial stars Béla Lugosi as the villainous Doctor Zorka with ... Foreign spies, operating under the guise of a foreign language school, ...
• 1979–1983 Side one ": "Double Dare" " ... "Bela Lugosi's Dead " (live version ) ... Side two ": "Telegram Sam ... "Spy in the Cab" " "Terror Couple Kill Colonel " " ...
• Ghosts on the Loose The house next door is actually used by a German spy ring led by Emil (Bela Lugosi ). Emil is furious that his minion has sold the ...

Plenty of context to see what each article is about, so no confusion there.

Which is separate from the autofill red herring. People know how to use an encyclopedia. They do not enter "1983-1991" into the autofill box in the first place unless they are looking for something called "1983-1991". No one would enter "1983-1991" into the box looking for Intelsat VI, even though those were the years of its design, any more than anyone would enter "98°" if they are looking for Sodium, even though it is sodium's melting point. But the album? the boy band? Yes. Dohn joe (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, so you're saying that User:Red Slash is wrong; People do randomly come across articles, but then you're saying that in Google Search the soundbite from the article body often does the job of making it clear what the article is about. I would agree, in search results which also sample the article body the sample from article body will often help make clear what an unrecognizable title does not. This may be the first thing we have agreed on in this thread. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I'm saying that it's almost impossible to come across 1983-1991 and not know what it's about rather instantly. I'm glad we can agree. Dohn joe (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I obviously don't agree with your view that it's almost impossible as I don't believe that typing "Bela Lugosi spy" into search is almost impossible, if someone is looking for a Bela Lugosi spy film what else would they type? I was just agreeing that Red Slash was incorrect and people do randomly come across articles, I was also agreeing with you that in Google Search the soundbite from the article body often does the job of making it clear what the article is about. In this case the reader luckily picks up "Side One" in the snippet, giving a clue that "Bela Lugosi spy" result is an article about an album and not what the reader is looking for. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

OTHER APPROACH

See below #Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) approach --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2014 (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.

Implementing after close

Implemented outcome of the above completed discussion in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) [10] --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Added a shortcut: WP:DATERANGETITLES --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines on potentially offensive article titles?

Is there any, please? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For what Fgnievinski is referring to, see Talk:Old age#Merge. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't make sense out of that diff. The answer is, for offensive and not-generally-used redirects, not allowed. For titles which are offensive and irrelevant to the content, not allowed. For titles which are potentially offensive and definitely relevant, they are allowed if the best name for the article. Being "potentially offensive" is not in the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Flyer22 added a diff, and it's a permalink to the target which is appropriate. OK, the answer is, "old age" is not potentially offensive, and WP:EUPHEMISM applies, even in titles. If there were a term which is reasonably common, matches "old age", and is clearly not a euphemism, you might have a point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski... to answer your question directly... potentially offensive titles are addressed in this policy (see WP:AT#Neutrality in article titles)... and are also addressed at WP:NPOV#Naming. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: would that term be "elderly"? Fgnievinski (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a euphemism, as it implies the positive view of wiseness as a consequence of age. "Old person" only describes the age of a person, whereas "elderly" implies the status of "elder". 02:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:COMMONNAME

There is a proposed change at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#When consensus screws thing up real bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Universities

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia_talk:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Article_title_in_native_language. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2014

See also: #RFC: Quotation marks in displayed article titles

Add the following to WP:TITLEFORMAT under “Do not enclose titles in quotes”:

However, a title can be made to appear in quotes by using <q>...</q> with the DISPLAYTITLE magic word.

Alternatively, please explain why <q>...</q> is supported by DISPLAYTITLE if this is not to be encouraged. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shall we wait for the RfC first? Not a good idea to start and RfC and an editrequest at the same time. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is inactive on a page with a lot of activity, and with really only me opposing (over resulting titles like ""Foo" Bar"), I think. So you or someone can probably go ahead and make the change, or else what’s the point of the tag being supported? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just commented in that discussion with a question; it's not a moribund thread yet. (Granted, it was a qualified "support", but I'd still like the technical question to be explored, since it may affect the instructions we give.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Missed my answer? As far as I can tell, if DISPLAYTITLE does not include a " that is in the title, it has no effect. Can't be done, unless I'm missing some very clever trick. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotation marks in article titles using <q> tag, redux

Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags

Accuracy and usage

Please see Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#WPAT discussion for some interesting opinions as to usage versus accuracy. Wider input appreciated, I think this provides some good examples of a widespread misinterpretation, and may help us to clarify the policy either way. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

In the refnote at the end of the first paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME, the word “appears” should be “appear” per subject-verb agreement. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC) 174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the note instead, finding no possible use for explaining in a footnote what COMMONNAME means, as the paragraph it's attached to already explains it. If a note for "common name" is needed, it should be placed where it would be useful. Then the number agreement would be singular again. But I think it's more clear without this. Dicklyon (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis put it back. Not sure why that footnote is needed, but I suppose it doesn't hurt, other than by vectoring the reader off to the bottom of the page to state the obvious. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Or to mouse over the link. Also, remember that common sense is not common. People misinterpret policy pages all the time. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Earlier this note was in the body of the page, where I would still prefer it to be. It's perfectly reasonable for less experienced editors to confuse WP:COMMONNAME with Common name, and they regularly do so. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In the body would make more sense to me, too. It will be easier to keep it clear without redundancy, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

Previous archived discussion on the subject

A Boy was Born is my Christmas gift to the German Wikipedia. In English it is A Boy Was Born, but A Child is Born. Please explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is simple... English is very flexible language, and there are exceptions to every rule. Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't a German name be used? --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In Germany, we take names as given. It's Messiah, and it's A Boy was Born, as the composers named them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I just checked that. A Child is Born (jazz standard) was just created a couple of days ago, apparently by someone not familiar with the Wikipedia MoS capitalization convention. I just moved it to A Child Is Born (jazz standard). Hopefully that will take care of it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"A Child Is Born" looks just as wrong as "A Boy Was Born". Perhaps the capitalisation of verbs should not necessarily include "is" and "was". Verbs are usually important, the verb "to be" very often is not. The capitalisation of Was/Is reads as unexpected emphasis, and it feels like a rule taken too far. English is a very flexible language, and forcing inflexible rules onto it creats occasional silly results. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that all verbs are capitalized in title case, including the various forms of to be like is, are, was, and were. In fact, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) says to capitalize all verbs when using what they call headline style, and then gives explicit examples like "Defenders of da Vinci Fail the Test: The Name Is Leonardo". (pp. 448–49, §§8.157–8.158). Imzadi 1979 → 08:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My experience, from googling "A Child Is Born" and "A Boy Was Born" -wikipedia is that not all verbs are capitalized in title case, specifically "is" and "was" frequently are not. The Chicago Manual of Style is an extraordinarily large and complicated work attempting to pretend that English follows rules, as long as there is no limitation on how complicated the rule. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Even in google books. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that CMOS was largely a collection of best practices already used and supported by linguists, publishers and editors. Anyway, on headline-style capitalization (aka title case) it says: “The conventions of headline style are governed mainly by emphasis and grammar” (emphasis of “emphasis” added). In this case (as in most all), we should follow our MOS/best judgement regardless of the original casing, unless it can be shown that it was an intentional stylistic choice. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"unless it can be shown that it was an intentional stylistic choice" is a pretty tough ask for an editor. It is asking the editor to divine an author's/publisher's "intention"? I suggest that in our best judgement, "is" and "was" are not like most verbs, and should not be capitalised if unimportant, unimportant determined by there being no change of meaning if the word is omitted, as in these two cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In these cases, if I read correctly, I think "is" and "was" are not verbs (certainly not proper verbs) but copulas. The verb is "Born". What does the CMOS say about copulas? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not say to put them in lowercase. That is all. Its section on title case basically says, “Capitalize every word except…” More importantly, WPMOS explicitly says to capitalize “all forms of to be”. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a tricky one. Etymologically, it's true that "born" was the past participle of the verb "bear" and so could be used to make up a passive: thus "Mary bore a child" (active) vs. "A child was born" (passive). So you could analyse "was born" as the auxiliary verb "was" followed by the past particle of the main verb "bear" making up the past passive. However, "born" isn't now part of standard English in this usage; for example "born by Mary" is odd (you need "of"), whereas normal past passives of action verbs can be followed by "by AGENT". I think that "born" probably now functions more as an adjective, which does make "was" a copula. I doubt this has anything to do with capitalization! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular expertise on this, but reading the copula article, "A copula is often a verb ... most languages have one main copula ... In the case of English, this is the verb to be." We are, perhaps, dealing with what the article calls a "copular verb". So "is" here is, it seems, both a verb and a copula. A copular verb is still a verb, isn't it? The Wiktionary seems to say that "is" can be a verb or a noun in English, and the noun meaning doesn't fit here. And MOS:CT also says that its use of "verb" is "including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Been)". The notion that being a copula means that something is not a verb seems dubious. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The notion is that it (to be), unlike other verbs, is often not capitalized in titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In comparison, a very similarly structured title, "Christ Has Come" always has "Has" capitalized (according to google books). It is not passive, true, but fits well the notion that "to be" is often a special, non-proper verb, unlike "to have". The rule to capitalize Is and Was in titles looks to me to be a classic hypercorrection, there is not such rule in English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Things would be so much easier if we would simply use what the composer published and most sources for the article say. Instead, people have tried hard to erase all traces of that, remove an image, try to get the line "published ..." removed. Why all that effort? - German was easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems like an issue that might be better to discuss at WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters rather than here. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And it seems that SmokeyJoe just opened a discussion there, which I wasn't aware of before making that remark. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

COMMONNAME and consistency between articles

Here is a situation where policy appears to break down a bit, and I am wondering if there is any sage advice to be gained here. Please note that this in not intended as a discussion which can resolve the issue, just an attempt to get input.

There are three ancient Egyptian queens all with the same name. There is variation in terms of how the names are transliterated in English language sources, but no dispute or doubt that the three queens share the same name. This makes it undesirable for them to have different names in WP. For one thing, we end up with articles that mention them as if they don't all share the same name when they do. The existence of one of the queens has only recently been discovered, so there is limited sourcing on her. That may change in future, and may resolve our problem, but the problem is there for now.

At present out three articles are: Khentkaus I, Khentkaus II, Khentakawess III.

If COMMONNAME were forced on the articles, we would be likely to get: Khentkawes I, Khentkawes II, Khentakawess III.

To achieve the desired consistency, we could have all the articles at Khenthaus [numeral], but they would not be conforming to COMMONNAME. Or, we could use Khentkawes [numeral], in which case two article would conform, but Kentakawess III would end up with a title not used by any of the sources relating specifically to it.

Is there a solution to this conundrum, or are we obliged by policy to have inconsistent titles in this case? Formerip (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no obligations. Consistency is nice, but not obligatory. Applying consistency, and creating a particular inconsistency with source usage for third queen is a problem for interested editors to discuss and find consensus. Is it this queen who has limited sourcing, which might be a good excuse? Can different source transliterations be written off as changing academic fashions in transliteration of the hieroglyphs? An explanation on relative transliterations might be appropriate at Khentkaus. Note that it is not really a DAB page as the four uses are closely related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. If the first two are usually referred to as "Khentkaus" and the third as "Khentakawess" why would we change it? If those are the forms that are actually used, use them. Make a note that the two spellings are simply variant transliterations and be done with it. See William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor for a similar case. To me, consistency doesn't seem as important as accurately reflecting usage. --Khajidha (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Consistency would certainly make sense here, if all agree that the names are the same. Do it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Little to add to what has already been said in the original discussion (Talk:Khentakawess III). Briefly, "Khentakawess" (with double s final) is hieroglyphically a nonsense but I can't oppose this version most likely created by media via some misunderstanding of the original; "Khentkaus" is well consolidated in Egyptology, but I'm not opposing the eventual consistency of all the articles to "Khentkawes" [numeral] which is another correct and used form; hopefully some academics will start to call K. III with a correct name (i.e. without "ss"), thus allowing a completely painless consistency. Khruner (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that Consistency is the weakest of our five criteria... It is still a valid goal, but when it comes to balancing the five criteria against each other, it tends to be the first to be sacrificed in order to achieve the others. We would certainly not favor consistency at the expense of Recognizably and Naturalness (which are the strongest of the criteria).

I agree with the other comments that say it would help to explore why the majority of sources seem to use a different variant with the third queen. If it is a case of media all using one variant vs. experts all using another, I would give a lot more weight to the experts (that can sometimes be what is "significant" in determining whether one variant has "significant majority" and thus is the COMMONNAME). But if it is a case of the experts disagreeing, then we would go with whatever the majority of experts use... even if we happen to think it is "wrong". Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And, whichever we use, the other should be mentioned in the lead sentence. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this really an example of COMMONNAME

I removed *Tenerife airport disaster (not: KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736) from the list of examples of COMMONNAME, but was reverted. So let's discuss. I am not saying that Tenerife airport disaster was the wrong choice for that article... I simply don't think it is a good example of WP:COMMONNAME.
Here is my rational... Tenerife airport disaster isn't really a name. I would call it the most common descriptive phrase for the event, and not really the most COMMONNAME of the event.
Yes, some commonly used descriptive phases for events can (and do) morph into names over time (Boston Massacre is my favorite example)... but those that do make this transition, all have something in common: they are all routinely presented in the sources with Capital Letters. The "XYZ disaster" becomes the "XYZ Disaster". That is not the case here. Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you want all names to be proper names. Seems like a bad idea to me. Things we use as titles, even if descriptive, are essentially names. We capitalize the ones that are proper names, as you note, using evidence from sources for when that has happened (or using the personal opinions of fans, too commonly, instead). Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Evolving into a proper name is the metric for calling a label a name? I disagree. A descriptive phrase for a particular thing is a name for that thing, just like (as you said when I brought this up) “guinea pig” and “caffeine” are names. COMMONNAME really means “use the sequence of words most commonly associated with the thing.” But while I disagree with your rationale here, I can’t argue that this event has a predominantly common name; top results for a relevant search show “Tenerife accident,” “Tenerife plane crash,” “the Tenerife disaster,” “the Tenerife Air Disaster”… I’m not really finding any agreement on what to call it. Yes, it has (uncapitalized) names, but none of them are common. But of course they’re all much more recognizable than the two flight numbers. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... thinking some more on this, when it comes to events we really have a three step scenario to consider... first sources coin purely descriptive phrases to describe the event (I would argue that these are not yet names)... then, over time and with repeated use, some of those descriptive phrases evolve into descriptive names for the event (but these are not yet proper names)... finally, sometimes (but not always) one of those descriptive names may become so common that it evolves into a proper name for the event. Would you agree with that?

But, getting back to whether Tenerife airport disaster is a good example of a COMMONNAME... do you agree that we should remove it from the list of examples? ... if you look at this n-gram comparison of several descriptive phrases that might be considered names for the event, the phrase "Tenerife airport disaster" does not even register. So even if it does qualify as a name... I think we would agree that it isn't the COMMONNAME, and thus should not be used as an example of one. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon raised an interesting and probably very important point. Sourced proper names are probably nearly always going to meet the unclear "COMMONNAME" definition trivially easily. Something with a proper name should be called by its proper name. As trivial, it is not so useful. Non proper name proper nouns and descriptive name examples are probably more useful examples. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Tenerife disaster might be better, though Tenerife airport disaster is more descriptive. So yes if we stick with the latter, then a better non-proper name example for COMMONNAME would be in order. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So... it sounds like everyone agrees that this is a poor example of COMMONNAME... and the question is whether to a) replace it with something better, or to b) simply remove it. We have lots of examples already... so do we need a replacement? Was this one (poor as it was) attempting to highlight some aspect of COMMONNAME that was not covered by any of the other examples? Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks in display titles using <q> tag, moved

I have move the discussion (and RfC) to its own page, as it kept being repeatedly archived. It is now at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles on buildings

See discussions on disambiguating articles on buildings here and here.--Mhockey (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization on Wikipedia

Hello,
It has come to my attention that Wikipedia, in the past few years, has recently been influenced by incorrect capitalization common throughout the English language. This is why I ask you: what is a proper noun? A proper noun is different from a general noun/common noun. Although common nouns can be proper nouns: Wikipedians refuse to realize this.

It isn't just a flaw within the English language. Our dynasty articles, such as Han dynasty, should be capitalized despite previous reasoning that "dynasty" is the same as an "era" and therefore should not be in the uppercase form. This idea is controversial. How is it, when Han dynasty is its proper name, that it cannot be recognized as a proper noun? This is the same problem with Cuban missile crisis, Tokugawa shogunate, among hundreds of articles.

Yes, it depends on how you use it in a sentence. If you're using Han as a descriptive term for the dynasty, instead of using the term as a whole, then it is indeed a lower case. (I'm using Han dynasty as my example here so it is easier to follow)

And when it comes to statistics, they cannot prove correctness in the English grammar, as for even a lot of the most professional English tongues cannot master it.

Wikipedia guidelines state that article titles should be written as if they were used in a sentence. This implies, although written and solidified a while ago, that titles such as "List of popular movies" (for example) should not be written as "List of Popular Movies". I'm sure this expands over a deeper span of situations and I get that. However, I see this as being taken too seriously, this downgrades proper nouns!

Recently, a user by the name of Dicklyon has been using guidelines to justify 5x5x5 groupings of requested moves while he doesn't, for nearly all articles under said discussion, have any "area of expertise in" or "participates" in. And need I remind you all that guidelines are not policies? Not every article that follows a similar situation another article is in also meets these guidelines.

Growing up, I have been taught proper nouns have capital letters. Sure, many people use lower case letters in situations; but how can we be so sure they carefully write this way?

There are people who understand grammar and there are people who do not. Unfortunately, one path is persuasive and have tendencies to rub off onto language usage. How can one say Wikipedia does not affect the way people use English? Wikipedia is one of the most influential websites on the world wide web. This simply can't be denied.

I have not come to immediately spark debate. I have come to call upon other Wikipedians to look into all aspects of English. Look everywhere. Have an English teacher in your family? Talk with them about the subject. Look into the roots of English grammar. Search hard and endlessly. Do not look to Manuals of Style as they are variations of how to use grammar based on the way those who speak and write using said MOS views the language itself. Not everyone is taught the same style, but everyone is taught the same basic rules of English. One that is not followed, or damn near comes close to question: How can Wikipedia fix or justify the case of letters for proper nouns?

I'm sure there are Wikipedians who have spent years studying all aspects of the English language. For I am not one of those, so I do not speak on the behalf of those who do. In the other hand, there are also many who are not experts in the language and do not use correct English.

And when all is done; what is your final look onto things? Can you justify this without simply because somebody else convinced me? Convince yourself and then you may truly speak. Do not let others influence your ultimate decision. This is a simple life lesson almost everybody is taught to learn. Or should at least...

My final request is to bring this discussion to a much larger scale as it affects the entire encyclopedia. Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

When this question is brought to enough people, as it was at the big RM discussion earlier this year at Talk:Han dynasty#Han Dynasty to Han dynasty, they usually do not come down as you do and declare the widespread lowercase use in sources to be due to authors with bad English (and I did not participate there; the closer noted a "clear consensus" for lowercase). It is hard to see what makes you so sure that "Han dynasty" should be treated as a proper name, even though authors of English typically do not treat it as such. So, yes, study and learn, but then live with what that studying reveals, please. If you look at my recent closed and open RM discussions, you'll see pretty much the same pattern: widespread acceptance of WP's title and style guidelines, until fans of an area come in and insist on capitalizing what better sources (books) do not. If you and Randy Kryn weren't so devoted to caps, the open ones such as Talk:Pullman_Strike#Requested_move_20_December_2014 and Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1954–68)#Requested_five_pages_be_renamed_and_moved_27_December_2014 would easily close with consensus to lowercase. Perhaps your appeal here will help... Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not move President of the United States to President of the united states, since the country at issue is merely a collection of states that are united, and it is therefore grammatically correct to refer to united states? Why have Toledo Symphony Orchestra rather than Toledo symphony orchestra, since the first line of that article says quite directly, "Toledo Symphony Orchestra is a symphony orchestra in Toledo"? bd2412 T 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Sources are why; and sources. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you be so sure your statistics, which seem to come from one reference tool alone, are accurate? And why do you consistently use guidelines as if they were policies? So yeah, with what bd2412 was saying, let us while we are at it lower case United states since it is just a bunch of states united. Why do you see statistics as a proofing method for English grammar? This is simply not a language you can deem correct with statistics! This isn't mathematics. The sooner you realize this Dick, is the sooner our discussions can evolve into further stages. This topic at hand is far too controversial to leave as it is. Also, when I said larger scale, I meant Wikipedia notice for discussion or something to that extent. I am tired, as many users are, of seeing admins closing discussions because of consensus unions evolving because the majority lack the will to make decisions for themselves. I once lost a consensus to people claiming that Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin's Rebellion should be called Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin Rebellion. Nobody would even hear what I had to say and used bogus excuses and rode bandwagons into the conclusion of the panel and it was stomach turning. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The stats don't "proof" anything. They're just numbers and graphs. Interpret them any way you want; or find better stats. They are just one view of what's out there, and are probably more useful than claiming to know what's "correct" while ignoring what's out there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a little confused by the idea that something can be "incorrect" and also "common throughout the English language"... English is a dynamic language. What is considered "correct" is flexible and changes over time. So if a given capitalization is indeed "common throughout the English language"... I would argue that (defacto)... it is "correct". And what was once "correct" may or may not stay "correct".Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't changed. You always capitalize proper nouns and we seem to think it is okay to ignore this rule in the English grammar. Which, indeed, still exists. And by incorrect yet common, think of the word alright. It's not correct, the actual term is "all right". Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So much damage has been done in capitalization here. (EDIT: I was wrong here, explained in the comment below, and apologize to Dicklyon, and was striking when he edit conflicted me. I'll do so now) Among the most recent mass moves without a discussion are the formerly and correctly titled BRIT Awards (even the BRIT Award Official website and their yearly logos capitalize the term), which are the British recording awards. Dicklyon has recently mass moved the BRIT Award pages into Brit Awards, as if he thinks since it's a play on the word British, so it should be Brit (I can't think of any other reason why he'd do this). Yet, as linked above, the official BRIT Awards site capitalizes BRIT Awards, the use of the capitalization has been consistent throughout my knowledge of the awards and even though newspapers like to say Brits, because it is a cute name, and seem to be creating the common name, doesn't this need a discussion? I can see how Dicklyon just goes in and moves pages which are obviously long-standing names, then when someone steps up to disagree they are attacked like wild animals. Dicklyon, reverting all your edits on the BRIT Awards would be very time consuming, please go back and do it yourself, and then maybe open a discussion on it. Thanks. The BRIT Awards, decapitalized without a discussion? Seriously? And people just let this stuff happen? Randy Kryn 5:26 7 January, 2015 (UTC)

These moves were not undiscussed, and not controversial, as you can see at Talk:Brit_Awards#Requested_move_28_December_2014; most good sources use "Brit"; we don't go by logos. What other changes do you think are "damaging"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong here, you edit conflicted me as I was going to do a striking on my comments and apologizing. I didn't see the discussion, just saw your mass moves and thought you had done so like you did on the pages I met you on. So my personal apology to you (would you mind if I did a strike? Thanks). For damage, see Cuban missile crisis, where most people correctly opposed the lower-casing. Randy Kryn 6:02 7 January, 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted, you wild animal. On the Cuban missile crisis, there has been a moderate trend toward more capitalization in recent years, but still sources support the idea that caps are optional, not necessary. How does this damage Wikipedia, to do as so many other reliable sources do? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a knee jerk reaction to the BRIT Awards and didn't look at the talk page before making my inaccurate comments. I meant damage to the title 'Cuban Missile Crisis' itself, via Wikipedia. Wikipedia sets the style in many cases, so making moves such as this creates a social wave which literally deemphasizes the event in the 'outside' world. I think that's one of the reasons this discussion may have been opened, that some people are experiencing your long (I see it's several years now) effort to lower-case events and names on Wikipedia as effecting how the civilization looks at these events. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, has gained a historical foothold in people's minds as a defining event in the Cold War (or Cold war?), and to them it is an obvious upper-case proper name, as your link shows. So maybe this discussion can be about how the effect of decapitalizing names ripples outward from Wikipedia, which may be the concern that some of us have. Your project now seems to be focusing on social issues, where maybe the rubber meets the road on this question and discussion. Make sense? Randy Kryn 6:24 7 January, 2015 (UTC)

Randy, I don't buy your interpretation of WP damaging the perception of important events by using lower case. And I wish you would also strike "when someone steps up to disagree they are attacked like wild animals" unless you can show where someone did that. I may have referred to you as a fan, or a zealot, in certain areas, but I don't think you should take that as criticism of yourself. I have no problem with you being zealous about the civil rights movement, the Cuban missile crisis, the Pullman strike, or the Brit Awards. Go for it. These are all great things to be fans of. But WP has style guidelines, and without good reasons to the contrary we usually support changes that bring things into closer agreement with guidelines. I have not been focusing on social issues; I just happened to notice and follow some links through riots and massacres to strikes and eventually to you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Striking done, I was thinking of calling someone a liar without assuming good faith. The Cuban Missile Crisis seems like a good point to discuss your project. Judging from your criteria and way of arguing these things you yourself should be trying to put the capitalization back on that page. Do you only go one way on these pages, from cap to decap? Why don't we join hands, sing Kum Ba Ya, and reverse that one. JFK can then stop rolling in his grave, which would be a good days work, no? (lol, or LOL?) Randy Kryn 6:44 7 January, 2015 (UTC)

Randy, I have occasionally moved things to uppercase. But you need to understand that most articles are created with uppercase title words, since most users (esp. new ones) don't know about WP:NCCAPS, or they know about it but make articles on things they care deeply about and like to see capitalized. One seldom sees editors who don't know to capitalize proper names (contrary to Eric's assertion). So the maintenance work of moving toward style guidelines is most often downcasing. Until the last couple of months, it seldom attracted much notice; but then RGloucester got all up and reverted my most recent 33 moves (I think because I didn't notice one or more of the riot articles I had moved had already been moved by another editor and moved back by RG, so he got pissed), and trying to recover from that disruption has brought a lot of discussion, much of it way silly and offbase, like Eric (and RG, who claimed to be sent by God to fix such problems). Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I scan the Special:NewPagesFeed, where almost all new titles are upper case (mostly for good reasons); today I found a couple of the rare opposite problem: Jeanne foguth (I fixed); Curtis giddings; it's probably about to be deleted, so I won't bother fixing it. Worth a look are articles like Registered Scientist; is this a proper name? a trademark? or just something that its promoters like to capitalize? The excessive heading capitalization suggests that the author is unaware of our style. But maybe the title is OK. China Household Finance Survey has similar issues worth investigating via sources; the article is full of over-capitalization, and it's not clear whether the title is a proper name; maybe it is, maybe it's not; someone needs to check when cleaning up caps in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I should hesitate to enter this discussion, but the "Cuban missile crisis" is a common noun-phrase ("Cuban" being a proper adjective, and the phrase violates most interpretations of grammar, using the noun "missile" as an adjective), and so should not be capitalized, even if some of the others mentioned in related threads above should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm struck by a comment in the second paragraph of this thread: "If you're using Han as a descriptive term for the dynasty, instead of using the term as a whole, then it is indeed a lower case." How can you (or anyone) tell? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By looking at the context in which the word is used? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts on the argument that using lower case in some way "downgrades" the perception of important events ... I don't really accept this argument either. But for the sake of discussion, let's see where accepting that argument would lead us:

First, if using lower case can "downgrade" perception, then the flip side should also be true... using upper case can "upgrade" perception. And... we this means we need to be cautious... we don't want to downgrade or upgrade unduly. So here's the question... how do we know how much importance to give the event? How do we know whether capitalizing would be undue?

Second: If case really did affect perception, then surely our collective perceptions would already be affected by what sources beyond Wikipedia do. The n-gram on "Cuban missile crisis" shows that lots and lots of sources (a majority, in fact) don't capitalize it... so one would expect that our collective perception would be that the Cuban missile crisis isn't that important. Yet, somehow, despite the lack of capitalization in sources, we do understand that it was a very important event. Thus, I have to conclude that the argument is flawed... lack of capitalization has no effect on our perception of importance. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For "the Han dynasty" (or Dynasty), there seems to be to be absolutely no difference in wording between referring referring to the "Han Dynasty" as an object or to referring to a dynasty which happens to be "Han", noting that there can be only one. For some of the other examples, there might be a difference, although a Rose Bowl Game (referring, say to the 2001 or 2015 game, or to one of the games in which Washington played) looks a bit jarring. I don't know what to call a "proper noun" which refers to one of a group of specific objects, without specifying which one. I would have thought that it would be grammatically incorrect, as would using the term Civil War to refer to either the American Civil War or the English Civil War. (A few months ago, I attended a presentation entitled "My civil war was worse than your civil war" (note the links), at the Huntington Library. The pronouns (pro-adjectives? whatever) make it clear that "civil war" is a common noun-phrase in that context.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

But the "My civil war..." example is using "civil war" as a class of things or descriptive category. In each dialect one would say "The Civil War" and not expect to need disambiguation as to which civil war. Within each dialect, Civil War is a proper noun. --Khajidha (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Khajidha is correct. That usage of civil war is classing it not addressing the proper name. That is why I said it depends on context whether it is capitalized or not. That is why saying "My city is better than your city" is lower case because you have not properly addressed the name (proper name, hence) of the city. However, properly addressing (proper naming) "New York City is better than Kansas City" (just an example) would be upper case. This is kind of a weak example but you get the point. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• By affecting perception of importance, it is more of a possibility that it can influence an individuals looks at it rather than the a general population, but things escalate often. I'm unsure why Dickylon favors using statistics to prove correctness in the English grammar over definitions and actual rules within the language. I can easily get 100 people around that don't know the difference between too, two, and to and does that mean what they say is right? And why can we let something like Google Books, which no doubt contains VEEEEEEEERY little of works out there, hold the fate of correctness? I don't see why people think statistics can be used to justify grammar. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  English, unlike many other languages, does not have an "official" set of rules. Grammarians set (or codify) rules, but they are subject to change. In French, there are official rules for spelling and grammar. The question of "rules" for capitalization has only been attempted since the mid-19th century, and cannot be said to be established. There are still holdovers from German where all nouns are capitalized, and (I believe) no (capitalized) "proper adjectives". Hence, "we" (Wikipedia) can set style rules that make sense, regardless of whether they are official or commonly used. In the case of capitalization of proper noun-phrases, there we probably should go by what is commonly used (the term "proper noun"(-phrase) not withstanding), but there isn't agreement as to what that is. We could set, by consensus, any style we choose, but, in the absence of consensus (as now), we should go by the style used in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjectives are what you could say "subjects of proper nouns" in these cases. Once it (the phrase, etc) is identified as part of the named proper noun it is recognized as a part of the noun. Which is proper. Which are capitalized. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I have been saying all along. It would be great if we could amend the MOS to say it. Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Google Books is not a reliable source because of its low inclusion of the many books out there and your view on correctness in capitalization I really do understand but to say that we should ignore capitalization of proper nouns is against the grammar and absurd. And no, the MOS is not a dictation of how Wikipedia is written and you need to start realizing this because it is getting ridiculous. If we could amend the MOS to also say the MOS has exceptions that'd be AMAZING too. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's right up on top: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." But we do also have (and have had for many years) a broad consensus on the basic scheme of avoiding unnecessary capitalization, and on using sources to help us determine what's necessary, that is, necessary when sources consistently capitalize, and not when they don't. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"using sources to help us determine what's necessary, that is, necessary when sources consistently capitalize, and not when they don't."... wow... Dick, that sounds like you have have been converted to the "favor COMMONNAME side of the debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)

I understand your reasoning but you must realize there are topics out there that should be capitalized although people choose not to and you keep suggesting that all articles that aren't capitalized on Google Books become lower case which is a bunch of baloney. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 12:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"you must realize there are topics out there that should be capitalized although people choose not to" ?? No, I don't realize that; I can't fathom why you would think that, especially in light of WP's style as stated in the opening paragraph of MOS:CAPS. Caps are clearly just not necessary in situations where most authors choose not to use them. And Google Books is just a tool; it's a quick way to look at a large sample of reliable sources; feel free to bring in other data. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Bluboar, you say: "I am a little confused by the idea that something can be 'incorrect' and also 'common throughout the English language' ". Like "its" for "it is"? Common as muck, I'm afraid, in every anglophone country. WP's style has emerged over the years through a composite process, which I think is not being grasped by some people in this thread. There's no one correct party-line on capitalisation, yet people are talking of the need to avoid "weakening" the displayed distinction between proper and common nouns; but that boundary was never as simple as it was put to us in grade school, and the problems were swept under the carpet in the typewriter era through the widespread and largely unquestioned practice of capping everything in sight if you wanted. Some people in corporations and public organisations still do this, which is why there's so often a proponderance of eye-poking caps in documents of the "report" type. This is not supported by much other usage, by linguistic logic, or by the major authorities in the language.

  In the modern online era, sites like Wikipedia have been part of a move away from scattergun capping, and towards a default of downcasing unless capping is really necessary. This is common to many other English-language publishers with an abundance of means to highlight text without the use of capping, a desire to be as smoothly readable as possible, and an international readership, including many non-native readers whose own languages have quite different protocols for capping—or don't do it at all. The major English-language style guides (CMOS and Oxford among them) want less capping than there used to be—that is perfectly clear from the change in their advice over the past two decades.

  Arthur outsourcing to "reliable sources" might be more practicable if those so-called RSs were consistent with each other and within themselves. They are usually not, and who wants to import mess?

  bd2412: I don't understand your logic—I can only assume that you're trying to make a point through exaggeration in the hope that it will be crystal clear to all. The jumbling of categories in your examples isn't doing what you want it to, I fear. Tony (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't accept it. English is a dynamic ever changing language. It may be common for people to write "its" for "it is", but it isn't COMMON the way we mean it here (Overwhelmingly more sources write "it's". That may change... If the majority of sources start omitting the apostrophe, then we can say that the apostrophe has become out-dated and "its" will be correct). Other style guides may be calling for decapitalization, but if the majority of actual usage in sources had not followed that guidance (if actual usage still capitalizes), then we can not (yet) call what the guides call for "incorrect".

It may be that we are a transitional phase as far as capitalization goes... where some terms are still regularly capitalized but others are not. So to know which is "correct" in a specific case, we have to look at source usage as it relates to the specific term. This will give us inconsistent results... but English is an inconsistent language. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this has been discussed above, I'll mention here I've put it a request for a new vote on the capitalization of Cuban missile crisis on its talk page. Since I'm new to this, but seem to be playing out my rookie month, can someone please help with formalizing the distribution of this request through the proper pings and Wikipedia pages, and help with adding linked data to the 'oppose' side of the debate (I tried to be fair in my opening post but have more 'Support' links and observations than 'Oppose). Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:22 8 January, 2015 (UTC)

• I'm baffled how people can take it upon themselves to look only for proof in lower casing rather than look on both sides of the conflict. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Amen. Betcha if Dicklyon was arguing the side of capitalizing Cuban Missile Crisis he'd run rings around everyone who wants it kept lower-case. I've asked him to take that side of the nomination as well, so voters have the best evidence available provided by people who know how to dig up and post data without taking a side. The topic, Cuban Missile Crisis (or Cuban missile crisis), seems important enough to do that. Guess I don't see Wikipedia as an us-against-them battlefield, like a prosecution team, but a place where the full evidence combined with a large dose of common sense gets picked over and analyzed from all points of view by everyone involved. And I am serious, Dicklyon is so good at this stuff - at making his side seem like the only side which can be tolerated - that once in a blue moon he really should be encouraged to provide full research on both sides of some questions, research undertaken with an equal determination, so that a better chance for fair consensus can be reached. Randy Kryn 1:20 9 January, 2015 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen a lot of evidence that my ability to construct a logical and persuasive argument, based in data and guidelines, is a particularly winning strategy. The "fist-shaking" as SMcCandlish called it, of zealots who are sure they are right seems to work about as well. See for example Talk:Pottawatomie Massacre#Requested move. But if you want some tips on my style, try making arguments relative to our consensus policy and guideline pages, supported by data. It might work, or might not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that's the problem in this whole question. To say that a title that's not "consistent" (i.e. used by everyone everywhere) is automatically lowercased seems odd and quite unfair. I'll go back to Cuban Missile Crisis, which the majority of sources capitalize - but according to strict Wikipedia policy if not every source does, then it's an automatic lower case. That's the hole in the glazed donut. The policy (or guideline) is so weighted in favor of lower-case (well, the Iowa Daily Sun doesn't capitalize it, sorry, not consistent. Well, that's exaggerating, but makes a point) that it seems a fixed game from the start. And very unfair in that it does boil down to a legal standard, and not a common sense standard. I'm one of those who lean towards common sense nearly every time, if something is used as a proper name by a large percentage of people, and they can explain why something should be seen as a proper name, then they are onto something which shouldn't be ignored or discarded. And look at the number of people posting on these things, it seems these policies and votes are controlled by an extremely tiny number of people, most of whom have axes to grind and a set-in-stone position to uphold. You can fit the number of people who vote or discuss these things into a single row of classroom chairs. So you, upholding what you see as policy and others see as guidelines which should be applied with common sense, always have to argue and present data on the side of lower-casing rather than making exceptions and coming down on the side of capitalizing what a large percentage of people see as proper names. I now see that Wikipedia has something broken, and yes, it's broken enough that it does hurt the general public perception of world-changing events (at least when we get into votes on pages which are recognized as world-changing events). That's why you can't support a move back to capitalization on a page like Cuban missile crisis (named to look as if missile crisis' were a dime a dozen), because of a strict adherence to a few words on guideline pages. If I'm in the ballpark with this analysis, why not expand the acceptance level of proper names a little to include things that somebutnotall experts in the field (for Cuban Missile Crisis, experts like the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, the Library of Congress, the U.S. State Department, etc. and etc. and etc.) see as important enough to capitalize. Randy Kryn 2:32 9 January, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe your strategy of just making stuff, as if it were true, works well enough that you should just stick with it. Things like "Cuban Missile Crisis, which the majority of sources capitalize". Who's going to notice that it's just BS? Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I will ask for an apology, and expect you to apologize. What an uncivil and inaccurate post. Although maybe the Library of Congress may be inaccurate [EDIT: no, I was right about the Library of Congress too I was thinking of the National Archives. Randy Kryn 6:00 9 January, 2015 (UTC)

Calling you on your BS was about the quoted comment, not about those particular sources, which I have not checked. But you have not shown any reason to believe "the majority of sources capitalize", have you? Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I edited my post above yours, the Library of Congress capitalizes too. Your own ngrams show the majority of those sources, at least, capitalize. A quick search engine search finds the majority capitalize, although major magazines like The Atlantic use lower-case, as does the New York Times inconsistently (it's odd the Times has both upper and lower case, the paper of record creates a contradictory record). I haven't spent hours researching this, so my quote was from a quick and common sense look at the sources mentioned (and a quick but not exhaustive look at the references on the page - if you exclude the early 1960s and '70s references, and many of those may be mixed as well, I haven't checked every one). We both are on the edge or over the edge of Wikipedian civility, but when I am called a liar, and this has occurred several times now, I certainly must take issue and both deny that I've lied and ask for said apology. Doesn't mean you have to give it, just that I take that accusation very seriously and try to live my life, both online and offline, abiding in truth. Randy Kryn 6:24 9 January, 2015 (UTC)

And look at the Cuban missile crisis page itself at Primary sources, Lesson plans and External links. I don't know if Primary sources on a Wikipedia page mean something other than Primary sources, but if not, capitalization seems to hold. Randy Kryn 6:47 9 January, 2015 (UTC)

Randy, I don't have to refute ALL of your BS, but I did look at the first item in each of Primary sources, Lesson plans and External links, as well as Further reading and Historiiography. I found that that the first external link treats Cuban Missile Crisis as a proper name (or maybe not, since they also capitalize Missile Crisis alone in their text, suggesting a style of capitalizing important terms whether they are proper names or not), but the first ref in each of the other four sections do not; they either have it lowercase in their text, or in the case of the lesson plan, do not have it in their text at all. So I am missing your point. Show us what you're finding. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

More BS, where you say, "Your own ngrams show the majority of those sources, at least, capitalize." I have no idea what you're saying here, which n-gram stats you refer to, or why you think they can count sources. The n-grams count occurrences; and the occurence counts favor lower case when they are constructed to favor sentences over titles. Simpler n-gram counts tend to have a strong bias toward uppercase, for various reasons. For example, some books with Cuban Missile Crisis in the title will have hundreds of uppercase occurrences, from the tops of every other page, and relatively fewer lowercase occurrences in sentences, yet they are examples of sources that use lowercase (e.g. this book). The opposite is not possible. Many citations to book and paper titles also contribute to the uppercase count more than to the lowercase counts, yet have no real bearing on the question of how many sources treat it as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer Dicklyon directly on this, as he continues to call me a liar. Would someone else look at the Cuban missile crisis page and check out the Primary Sources section, the Lesson plans section, and the External links and report back. Maybe Dicklyon knows if he goes more into those he'd disprove his own point, maybe he doesn't (so can someone else look, so he can call you a liar too? Thanks). Some of the pages, like this one from the State Department, are on pages within the page-linked material. The lesson plan Dicklyon mentions is also from the State Department, and does not mention the name at all in what he calls the text, but lists it on every one of the five pages of the plan as the title. I have looked at as many of the Primary sources, Lesson plans, and External links as my software allows (I don't have Adobe), and to me they strongly strengthen the case for capitalization - and I would think if Dicklyon was arguing that side of the question he'd be shining a spotlight on those three sections. I have not been familiar with ngrams until recently, so I may have misspoke by calling them sources. His link here at 6:10 on January 7, and his ngram links at the talk page discussion on the move request, do show an upper case prominence, even with the addition of extra words in the listings (his January 7 ngram link in this discussion shows the trend is moving further to upper case over the years, although the data cuts off years ago). This has taken a lot of time, and it now seems to be a two person discussion, so I'd prefer, as mentioned, if someone else can go over the page sections I raised. Thanks. Randy Kryn 17:12 9 January, 2015 (UTC)

Randy, you continue to assert without evidence that "to me they strongly strengthen the case for capitalization", and plead not having enough time to back that up, even though I've taken the time to show where your assertions about source usage are false. This is BS. Did I say you lie? No; but BULLSHIT is what it is. Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes but you act like there are no sources that promote capital letters when many sources do in fact and continue to increase. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, now YOU are lying. I have always been up front in noting that close to half of sources DO capitalize it. Where have I acted otherwise? Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in your tone. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Dicklyon your wrote It's right up on top: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." where in the AT policy or naming conventions does it say that? -- It has long been known that common sense does not exist as a concept with the wide and diverse membership on Wikipedia. In England it is common sense at night on a narrow road to walk on the right so that one faces the oncoming traffic (to see and be seen), but if it is common sense in England it is not common sense in Canada. -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn you wrote above "but according to strict Wikipedia policy if not every source does, then it's an automatic lower case." how can you possibly draw that conclusion from the AT policy section "Use commonly recognizable names" (WP:UCRN) which has two sentences that say "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." and "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm right with Dicklyon on his calling out of the BS factor here. Tony (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how Dicklyon and User:Tony1 can argue as they are and simultaneously support the addition of "Note that the preference for common names does not indicate that titles should necessarily be styled as they are found in other sources." to this policy, because I think that the adoption of the proposed wording undermines the arguments Dicklyon puts forward. -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it undermines it at all. That phrase basically says it's not about a vote of sources. What we look to sources for is information about proper name status. If sources capitalize reasonably consistently, then we treat it as a proper; if they don't, we don't. If a mere majority capitalize, that's not enough; that's how it has always been on WP. But with many of the current cases being argued, that's not even the issue, since a majority use lowercase; the BS is from the people who want to capitalize anyway, and want to ignore a proper analysis of sources in the process. Look at the data and the arguments in the recently closed RM at Talk:Pottawatomie Massacre, or at any of the open RMs, for examples of what I mean. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Dicklyon's explanation of how we should use an examination of source usage to determine if something is a proper name (or not) - where the two of us probably disagree is on where we draw the line as to what is "reasonably consistent" ... I suspect he draws the line much closer to "unanimous" usage than I do.) I take this one step further... I think an examination of source usage is how we should determine all "stylized name" issues. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that can prove if something is proper is if it fits in dictionary definitions of proper nouns. So why the hell did you shoot down my claims for that on other pages? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... There isn't a 1:1 relationship between whether noun phrases are proper and whether they are capitalized. The simplest (but not universal) test for a count noun phrase being proper is that it is correctly used without a determiner, whereas if not proper it requires one. Thus "John" in "There's John" is a proper noun because no determiner is allowed ("There's the John" is wrong) whereas "man" in "There's the man" is a common noun because a determiner is required ("There's man" is wrong). On the basis of this test, phrases like "page 3" or "chapter 7" are clearly proper noun phrases. "It's on page 3" and "It's in chapter 7" are correct; "It's on the page 3" or "It's in the chapter 7" are wrong. Yet today it has become uncommon to capitalize "Page 3" or "Chapter 7" in these contexts (although it used to be the norm, at least in the UK). Furthermore there are distinct differences in capitalization conventions between the variants of English and between different publications within a given variant, regardless of the properness of the noun phrase. (In the UK for example The Telegraph capitalizes more than The Guardian, so the former writes "the French Parliament" whereas the latter writes "the French parliament"). So, sadly, "dictionary definitions" don't help. Publications, including Wikipedia, need a house style if they are to achieve any kind of consistency. Rightly or wrongly, the English Wikipedia seems to have decided on maximum decapitalization. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And just to make things even more confusing... there is Page 3. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I think I need some "extra" explaining on that one. While John is certainly a proper noun, a specific person, the White House (specific and unique when referring to the Presidents "house") is a proper noun, a specific place, and one wouldn't say "I went to White House". As for as the example of "page 3 and "chapter 7"; The previous sentence would set up "It's in chapter 3.". Example: "Do you know where the Belgian draft horse is located (in this book)?"; "It's (the Belgian draft horse) on page 3 of chapter 7.". This is certainly not a Wikipedia thing as I do not recall ever seeing a common count noun being capitalized and a proper "count noun" is not "usually" questioned. The 3 eaglets in the nest will hopefully grow up to be 3 Bald eagles.".

I am not that old though, being born after the invention of jet aircraft but before space flight, so I may not be up to date on very historical usage. I am also not a specialist on British or Canadian usage but I think some editors try to over-complicate things. If a word (or noun phrase is not a specific person or unique entity, I do NOT capitalize it. "IF" a word is a group or class entity I do NOT capitalize it. "IF" I can not identify a word or noun phrase (denoting proper or common) I do NOT capitalize it. "Belgian" is a proper noun, a specific breed of horse, and "draft horse" is NOT a proper noun, as it is a class of horse among several. This means that on those "names" (entities), that are not so clear, we can follow a "rule" that if it is NOT an obvious proper noun do not capitalize. Then, in a perfect world (IKR!!) it would mean we would need to look at references (source) to determine common usage when the use is contested. AT that point the burden would be on the person contesting the usage. I realize that would be far too simple and we probably would never want that so it is just a thought. I hope that there is "common knowledge" that prevalence means "common" right? Otr500 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Any proposal that opens with "Wikipedians refuse to realize this" in the first couple of sentences is just noise and can be safely ignored. Cf. WP:DFTT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Why avoid quotation marks in article titles?

§ Article title format instructs, “Do not enclose titles in quotes,” including for minor work titles like songs and TV episodes—why not? The only reason that comes to mind is they would interfere with alphabetical sorting, where such titles would be listed under " rather than under the first letter, but surely that’s a solvable problem. Are there other reasons? (Note that I’m asking about the actual name of the article affected by page moves, not WP:DISPLAYTITLE.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See the RFC discussion that is linked to in the thread immediately above your querry. I have not read all the back and forth, but apparently there are lots of issues involved. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That discussion is about presentation, not page names. I thought my parenthetical note drew the distinction. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my question: Why isn’t Let It Be (an article about a Beatles song) located at "Let It Be"? Why was this decision made? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I answered on the RfC, but summarizing: the quotes are used as markup (in running text) to denote the type of title. The quotes cannot be (and were never considered as such) part of the title for obvious technical reasons, like sorting, categorizing and searching (no one would enter the title with quotes). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I may be misremembering ... but it may have been due to the fact that the title of an article is used as part of the URL for the page... in the early days of WP, there were often technical limitations on (or at least concerns about) what characters we could use in our titles without screwing up the coding of the URL. Whether these limitation are still valid I would not know. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm, aside from that, it would be very nonstandard and idiosyncratic to have quote marks as part of section titles -- other publications, including encyclopedias, don't do this -- as well as unnecessary and probably confusing, except in cases where quotation marks are intended as part of the title. We use quotation marks (in some cases) and italics (in other cases) within the body of the text mainly in the interests of clarity. It's not just a random decision. Consider which of the following can be scanned and understood more quickly:

• Let it Be was a song on the album Let it Be.
• "Let it Be" was a song on the album Let it Be.

The latter is easier to scan. However, adding quotes to the title of the article would not serve the purpose of clarity or anything else, which is on reason that (on almost all albums, books of poetry, and whatnot) the individual entries are not in quotes. That is, the track listing for the album Let it Be lists the song a *Let it Be not *"Let it Be" and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It would not be completely without merit to use them in titles in Wikipedia, which is a general-purpose encyclopedia: they could be useful to distinguish titles of works from general terms at a glance. However, readers hardly get to articles by means of a random page, so the context (and reading the first sentence) easily clarifies the topic of the article. I agree, however, that the benefits would not outweigh the complications. No such user (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Quote marks are technically possible in page names: The link to quoted page name "A" connects a different page than the link to letter 'A'. One of the worst limitations is for musical sharp notes, such as "C#" linking to letter "C" due to the problem of the hashmark (pound sign '#') treated as a blank section title, rather than the final character of the pagename. The current use of quotation marks in article titles is one of many thousands of problems among WP's current 6,823,124 articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Misleading advice

Do not create subsidiary articles

Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another, …. (emphasis mine)

This advises against having subsidiary articles, then paradoxically goes on to suggest that subsidiary article are permissible. I suggest "Do not use subsidiary article titles". Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are a very small number of multi-part articles necessitated by technical limitations of the wiki software, but we try not to give people ideas. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. The majority of the top-viewed and/or best developed articles have their own subsidiary articles (e.g. Timeline of World War II) Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the heading there is wrong. We have “subsidiary” articles. We should avoid subsidiary titles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It would help if we could discuss some examples of articles where this provision might apply (and not apply)... then we could figure out how to word it better. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. Further, this advice/instruction/rule is in bad form. Who are these policy-page authors to make rules by fiat for the community. Far better, for community spirit, respect for policy, accessibility of policy to non-policy-wonks, for policy to explain *why* subsidiary article titles are not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and say it was never intended to be interpreted that way although that is certainly the way it reads. At any rate title policy pages should not be issuing edicts on page content. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context. Here is the full paragraph:

Do not create subsidiary articles

Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)" – use Transport in Azerbaijan. (This does not always apply in non-article namespaces: see Wikipedia:Subpages.)

Sports events with multiple articles about parts of the competetion make heavy use of en dashes for what many people would call subsidiary articles. A few examples of thousands: 2014 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles, 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group I, Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Note in the last example that we say Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics but then use en dash to get down to individual events. It is the accepted practice in the sports projects and I support it but maybe the policy should reflect the practice. It currently says: an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)" – use Transport in Azerbaijan". En dashes or sports are not mentioned but when sports use the equivalent of "Azerbaijan – Transport", it looks like the examples of what not to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that this goes back to the days when sub pages could be created in main space and they were discouraged. This sometimes leads to situations where the talk pages and the articles pages do not quite match as per AC/DC and the talk page talk:AC/DC (which is a sub page of talk:AC). In general it is usually agreed that subsidiary pages ought to be given names that stand independently, but sometimes that is not practical or really desirable. Blueboar some examples have already been given Jan Smuts is a good example of a large biography with subsidiary pages which appears to follow the guidance under discussion.

PrimeHunter you gave an example but it is not clear to me whether you support the format "Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres" and would oppose for example "Men's 100 metres at the 2012 Summer Olympics" as an alternative which is more concise but less consistent. Is the format of subsidiary pages a clash between "Naturalness", "Conciseness" and "Consistency"? -- PBS (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here... first is "should we create an article for a given subsidiary topic?" I would say that we sometimes over do it when it comes to creating subsidiary articles (creating them when they are not really needed... I think we could avoid the need for subsidiary articles by simply editing the "parent article" to trim the fat) but that isn't really a policy issue, and certainly not a WP:AT issue.

The other issue does relate to WP:AT... what to entitle a subsidiary article when we do create one? This is what I think the section is really trying to address.

To give an example: we currently have an article on the Battle of Gettysburg, with a subsidiary article entitled Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. In that case, the two articles are tied to each other through their titles (and I would say appropriately so).

Now, within the subsidiary article Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day is summary section discussing the Confederate assault on East Cemetery Hill. That section points to a sub-subsidiary article on that assault (see: Battle of East Cemetery Hill)... That sub-subsidiary article has a title that can stand on its own... and (I hope you would agree) because it does have a title that can stand on its own, it would be ridiculous to entitle it: Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day, Battle of East Cemetery Hill (or Battle of East Cemetery Hill (Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day), or something similar).... even though such a title would maintain the "chain of parentage" tie back to the main topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the naming of Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres and the rest in Category:Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics. "Men's 100 metres at the 2012 Summer Olympics" would be a little ambiguous with several swimming events although swimming includes the style in the name. Other cases like high jump are more clear but I like the systematic naming with the sport included in the name. PrimeHunter (talk)

Meh... there is a lot of stuff in that article that I would consider unnecessary sports trivia ... especially the charts of who finished where in the preliminary heats. I always like to ask: will the reader 50 years from now be interested in this? And there is a lot in the article that would not pass that test. While I respect the efforts of the editors who wrote it... I could easily see that article being trimmed dramatically, and the important information merged with similar articles into one single Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 January 2015‎

@PrimeHunter I understand you point on consistency, but please explain to me how Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres is less ambiguous than "Men's 100 metres at the 2012 Summer Olympics" because does not the the former suffers from the same ambiguity as the latter? -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The former says "Athletics" so it cannot refer to events in other sports like Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle. Sports readers are expected to know that Athletics (sport) is a specific sport. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that holds for all "sports readers"... a fan of baseball or ice hockey is a "sports reader", but may not know that at the Olympics the term "Athletics" refers to a specific sub-category of sports. Also, what about those who are not "sports readers"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

The term "Athletics" is the normal and common name of that sport and not something specific to the Olympics. I'm not sure of your point. Do you think we should replace "Athletics" by something else (what?) to help readers who don't know the name of the sport they are reading about? That goes completely against WP:COMMONNAME. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In North America, the word "athletics" means more or less any sport, not specifically those that involved running, throwing, jumping and the like. What's called "athletics" in much of the rest of the Anglophone world is called "track and field" in North America. See our article here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change regarding Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#Disambiguating books by just surnames --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the proposed change is simply an exercise in Instruction Creep. "One size fits all" never works. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)