Wikipedia talk:How2title

Comments on this proposal

I don't like it. I guess I can understand why a self-identified computer scientist might be interested in writing a program for selecting titles for Wikipedia articles, but this is not a programming problem. These are topics that humans need to make decisions on, and not all of the nuances that enter into naming can be reduced to binary questions. --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting anyone should follow it. I'm primarily interested in finding out if others agree that it seems to come up with the "right answer" (the title which we have chosen by consensus). Are there any exceptions? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I do like a lot of this, as a basic guide for how to come up with article titles, although I think that it gives short shrift to conventions for disambiguation. That is to say, I think it should be made more clear that when disambiguation is required, we should use parentheses only in the absence of a specific disambiguation convention. As it stands now, that bit is a little unclear. Otherwise I think it's basically good, although good luck getting consensus for it - there's a lot of people who are deeply committed to the various special conventions. Beyond the US places convention, we also have, for instance, the royalty conventions, where people seem just as committed to pre-emptive disambiguation. (I myself have somewhat mixed and possibly contradictory views of the royalty conventions, as I don't much like Queen Victoria as an article title, but I see no reason for silly titles like Louis XIV of France when Louis XIV will do just as well.

I do think that another issue that might be taken into more explicit consideration is use of middle names, initials and the like as opposed to occupation or some other distinguishing feature. When is this appropriate and when not? john k (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to think about your second point, but with respect to royalty, I suggest the path is 1-2-7 (because most royalty don't have one clear, natural and obvious name) -8... which takes you to the convention for royalty. Oh, and I see your point about 6, but I do think titling is more deterministic if you dab the name with parentheses. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...is not "Henry VIII" the "one clear, natural, and obvious name" for the man who ruled England from 1509 to 1547? So then shouldn't we go to 3, then to 5 (the Shakespeare play, along with some other alternate uses), then to 4? john k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But particularly famous royalty like that are the exception that should be at that name (per this algorithm and, not coincidentally, my view), but I don't think this is the case for most royalty. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so we agree on Henry VIII. What about Henry IV? It would seem to me that it is just as true that the "one clear, natural, and obvious name" for him is "Henry IV", in just the same way. For him, I think the route through your algorithm would be 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and I think a similar process would apply to most ambiguous monarchs with ordinals. john k (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Henry VIII redirects to the article about him, that's a primary topic case that goes from 5 to 4. Henry IV is a dab page, which, as you note, gets us to 6. But 6 already states, "Some categories of articles have conventions on how to disambiguate their titles; see WP:DISAMBIGUATION for additional guidance on that. " So that convention would be followed here. But I can see how the wording is not entirely clear on this - I just fixed that. Now it goes from 6a to 9. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere I have a book called the "The Sanity Inspector" in it, Alan Coren pointed out that the French language does not distinguish between natural heir and legitimate heir. I think you need to break out the difference between your "named entities" and "artificial subjects". I appreciate that you have been concentrating on "named entities" but "artificial subjects" ("descriptive names/titles") have to include NPOV/OR considerations at the time of creation or they are likely to be Speedily Deleted for obvious reasons. -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Query: "Done" section

The "Done" section currently has "9. The title of the article is the one that best meets the principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE." Am I going nuts, or should it not be "principal"? If it means the main, most important ... principal ... criteria? Please advise. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Should deciding titles be somewhat formulaic?

(this discussion moved from Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/precision)

• Yes, we're getting to the heart of where we disagree. Policies and guidelines are not rules, and should not be treated as such. We provide a list of factors to consider, and then we let people work out what that means, in each case. The purpose of writing down guidelines is to avoid constant repetition. Once the same argument is made in a thousand cases, we can stop repeating it. Therefore we write it down for the benefit of people who haven't see those thousand cases. Guidelines are just records of things that have worked in the past.

  If it emerges from individual cases that one naming factor is consistently given priority over another, then it is entirely appropriate for us to notice that, and write it down. We're not here to legislate, though.

  It is not true that guidance must be formulaic. Guidance can look like: "Here are principles to consider, now apply them in context, staying alert, and using consensus-building as a tool. Good luck; we trust you." -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with what GTBacchus says here. In some cases, the community may decide that conventions (e.g., royalty or tree of life articles) are more important than other factors, and that is perfectly fine. In other types of cases it might emerge that other considerations are more important than adherence to an algorithm-like decision tree. older ≠ wiser 23:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now we are getting to the heart of the matter. This is a question for both Bkonrad and GTBacchus, and anyone else who agrees with them on this:

On what basis is each editor to make his or her decision about which factors are more important in one case, but less important in another?

Is it anything they prefer, or something else? If something other than personal preference or inclination is the basis they are supposed to use to make these priority decisions, what is it? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may elaborate... In any case of deciding a title, there are two basic approaches:

1. Determine a desired outcome based on whatever you'd like, then construct an argument that prioritizes the various factors to support that desired outcome, or...
2. Determine an outcome which is the result of answering a series of questions in an "algorithm-like decision tree" that is constructed in advance by assigning relative priorities to each of the factors, including a few decision points along the way which may require subjective input (over time, the tree is refined to reduce these)

It seems to me that you guys are arguing for (1). If so, why bother with the various factors at all? Why not just let everyone choose their desired outcome based on whatever they want, and vote? How is that substantively different from (1)? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No. [W]hatever you'd like is far too derisive a description. While the guidelines can give some general assistance, many determinations, especially the difficult ones, are better decided on context and situation rather formulaic algorithms. Smart people get together and discuss what the best solution is for that context. Guidelines should certainly inform such discussions, but the guidelines are themselves limited vehicles and cannot be expected to provide black-or-white answers for every (or even most) situations. older ≠ wiser 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "whatever you'd like" is not even on the map for me. What I'd like doesn't enter into decisions I make about Wikipedia articles. When I paint my backyard shed, decisions will be based on what I'd like. This is different.

Here's how people make titling decisions: (1) Do what seems right, based on what you happen to know. If it sticks, great. If someone objects, or changes your title, go on to (2) discussion. A group of intelligent and good-faith editors weigh the various factors they know about, and discuss with open minds and in a collegial manner. The group comes to a decision.

In other words, I completely agree with Bkonrad here. I would even go a bit further, and say that we should resist codifying things too much, because the codification is actually dangerous.

The more formulaic things look, and the more a guideline so much as resembles a mindless algorithm, the more people will be tempted to shut of their brains, and just do what it says. We want editors to always keep their brains on, and whether or not it's the writers intention (it generally isn't), the codification of procedures will inevitably lead people to apply what's codified mindlessly. Mindlessness is, of course, the enemy. We have to be actively on guard against it, and the number one way to do that is to make sure our policies and guidelines don't look too much like formulas and rules. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're completely wrong about formulaic algorithms making things mindless. To the contrary, they bring focus to the specific issues on which the minds are really supposed to focus. But let's not get into that right now.

I understand their brains are on. What I don't understand is what they're supposed to be thinking in order to decide which factors are more important in one case, but less important in another? Again, on what basis is each editor to make his or her decision about which factors are more important in one case, but less important in another? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of context, and consensus, and whatever else may arise. Whatever basis it is, we get to talk about it, so if it's different in each case, that's fine. There doesn't need to be a formula to fall back on. It's better, or so it seems to me, when there isn't one.

What should they be thinking about? Everything. That's impossible, but if you miss something important, someone will bring it up. It's all good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, and exactly how is "on the basis of context, and consensus, and whatever else may arise" substantively different from "on the basis of whatever they like"? Forget hypotheticals, let's go to the bottom of the WP:RM backlog and pick the last discussion, and the first few comments, and see what they say. Martin Ruzicka → Martin Růžička:

• "to reflect the standard practice across most biographies." (Why? On what basis? What determined that standard practice?)
• "is the standard for players who names contain diacritics." (it is? What standard? Where?)
• "those who have played in North America should each have a separate requested move for each article, instead of being bundled into this one" (why? on what basis?)
• "Each move must be judged on its own merits. Lumping these moves all together does not allow for a case-by-case anysis to determine if the rename is, or is not, justified per WP:AT. " (good one!)
• "None of these are nationals of English-speaking nations" (So? On what basis is that relevant?)
• "I am opposed to bastard Romanisation by dumbly stripping away diacritics that effectively remove letters from an alphabet belonging to another language that cannot be rendered using only the '26 letters'" (okay...whatever you like...)

How is the basis for all but one of these not "whatever they like"? Is it any wonder often these results are no different than if everybody just tossed a coin? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Do you mind if we move this tangent we're on to the talk page of your essay, since it's what you and I are talking about now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, I'll answer your initial question first. Deciding something based on "context and consensus" is very different from deciding to do "whatever you'd like". Doing whatever you'd like might not take some important part of the context into account, and I'm suggesting that we do take the context into account. Also, doing whatever you'd like doesn't sound like a group process. If consensus-building is part of your considerations, then you're taking disparate views into account, and quite possibly making compromises that you're content with, although they're not exactly "whatever you like". Do those count as differences?

Now, you chose a juicy example, which is stuck in the backlog for multiple reasons. The format was objected to, and then the discussion went stale. We'll probably have to just close it as "no consensus" and advise that they should be run individually. Still, it's a good illustration of a move discussion. Not everyone in these discussions stays on-topic, of course, and not everyone cites policy. Those that do cite policy might do it wrong, and those who cite other authorities get that wrong, too. People use Google wrong... it goes on and on. Let's see what this crowd has to say.

Numbers 1 and 2 are arguing the consistency point. They haven't been specific, but they've seen lots of articles that do it one way, so they assume it's standard. Number 3 sees it as a question of how local English-language sources describe the subject, because that makes it fall under WP:ENGVAR. Four is good. I would also ask why number 5 is relevant, and I don't see any closer taking it into account, for that reason. Kind of a non-sequitur. Happens all the time, and no essay will stop that. Number 6 is arguing that we're an encyclopedia, so we should be accurate when it's technically possible. This person isn't arguing from WP:AT, but going further back, all the way to the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" principle. Encyclopedias inform people of what's correct, so we should get things right. Except for #5, these are all reasonable things to say. The closer has their work cut out for them! :)

I'm not entirely clear what bearing these remarks have on whether or not we should provide a formulaic naming algorithm. If such an algorithm existed, people would still make comments all over the map, and they would still have to be weighed (painstakingly in some cases) by someone who tries to be neutral and fair. We're not going to ever get it down to a formula, and I would argue that that's a good thing.

I also find myself wanting to ask if you've read my long-ish comment at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC#Other. It begins with the word "Observations". -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to explain my thinking another way. Everyone goes through some kind of process (call it a mega-process) to decide what the title should be for each case. And I'm using "mega-process" here in a broad sense, which encompasses all decision points. That is, if one objects by saying he uses one process (a) in one case, and another process (b) in another case, (a) and (b) must be subprocesses of some other larger process, the mega-process I'm talking about, as there must be some reason you decide whether to use (a) or (b), and that decision point is part of the mega-process. Now it might be true that the mega-process is a moving target, constantly changing, or at least evolving. But all I'm trying to do here is document the mega-process that best reflects what policy and consensus currently is. Then we can actually look at it and reflect whether it accurately reflects what we do, and fix it when it doesn't, including adding additional decision points as necessary, etc.

The alternative is what we have now, where everyone follows some mysterious mega-process and doesn't really know what it is, or how well he's really following it, or how his compares to the ones others are using.

I've been trying to identify and refine the mega-process I use so that it reflects policy and consensus as well as is reasonably possible. This essay is the result of that effort. There could be some other mega-process which is preferable. But until someone documents it, we really can't compare, much less decide. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The status quo isn't so bad, I don't think. That's how most of life works: we all are running various conflicting big-mega-processes, and we're not all very good at knowing what our own mega-process is. We still built Rome, and Wikipedia. The uncertainty doesn't mess everything up, it turns out. In fact, I'd argue it helps keep it going.

Let me try to speak the language you've provided, but tell the story a little differently. What if there is actually a correct mega-process? It exists, and it's never been written down, and none of us knows it. We know a few things about it, and the little that we've managed to agree on, we've written down. We generally know which principles are important, for example, but it's not always clear which one takes precedence in the event of conflicts.

We're trying to collectively feel our way to certainty about what the correct mega-process is. Once we all agree to a sufficient extent about something, we write it down. That's tricky, because the threshold for when we write something down is also part of what we're trying to feel out.

Now, once we write things down, people start treating them as rules, and think less about why they're following them. That's a shame, but it happens. It's human nature, and we can't change it. We all want to engage the mind at every step, but we all fail to some degree.

Therefore, we try not to write things down unless we're really darn certain that we've found a part of the True Mega-Process. If we err on the side of writing down something too soon, then we start building momentum and inertia in the wrong direction, and that's hard to undo. We play it really safe, and leave a lot up to judgment.

Suppose it becomes clear after some time that, whenever recognizability and conciseness conflict, we go with recognizability. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, we should wait until pretty much everyone agrees that it's true, and then we should write it down. The idea is to keep written policy behind policy being discovered in the field. It's not supposed to lead, but to follow, so you want to introduce it slowly, and shyly.

I'm using the word policy, but what I say applies to anything in project-space in varying degrees. In the case of an essay, you can write stuff down on a whim; it could say almost anything. There are limits, of course, but that's not what we're talking about. Linking to an essay in a policy is kind of like giving a stamp of community approval to the essay. You'll find that the more controversial essays, that significant numbers of Wikipedians disagree with, aren't linked from policy pages. That's kind of a big deal, for an essay. If you link to an essay from a policy, and you're reverted or otherwise opposed, it's a good sign that the essay doesn't enjoy wide enough support to be stably linked from a policy page. Let it get a little bit well-known first, and try not to plug it without saying up front that it's yours. That sometimes rubs people the wrong way.

You should check out my sandbox. I'm working on the Gandhi move request, which I may or may not close, but I'm trying to analyze it in terms of the five criteria. We're still figuring those rules out, so let's see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the status quo is bad (that is, it could easily be much better), in terms of how much title decision-making is a matter of personal preference as made evident by how frequently RM discussions result in "no consensus". It amounts to a lot of wasted time and energy.

A lot of what you say applies to real life, especially if you substitute "mega-process" with "philosophy". But deciding article titles isn't real life - it's much, much simpler. Or it should be. It certainly could be. The WP name space is of course an artificial world, a man-made world. Real-world rules can't be clean and precise because there are so many variables - but we can make the rules as precise as we want here. At the simplest extreme, we could just assign a sequential meaningless identifier to be the "title" of each article, and handle human-friendly searching via redirects, dab pages and links. And if we got rid of the concept of primary topic, then the question of redirect or dab-page for each name would be trivial to decide: if only one use it's a redirect, otherwise it's a dab page. So it could be that simple and trivial, and practically speaking it wouldn't be much different from what we have now, especially if we allowed the title heading of each article to just be part of the content, and thus not subject to disambiguation. So, for example, Orange (color) would be at something like SEQ31246 and Orange (fruit) at SEQ31247, but Orange would still be the dab page, and the "title heading" for each of these articles would just be Orange. There would still be some debates about what the "heading title" should be, but that would be no different than discussions and debates about what lead sentences should say - it would just be another content issue.

Anyway, that's the hypothetical (but not at all far-fetched) simplest scenario, and the title-deciding mega-process for that would be trivial: Obtain next sequence number from unique sequence number generator.

But if we want to have meaningful titles, that adds some complexity, but it does not have to be nearly as bad as it is. First, if an article has one obvious name that clearly most commonly used in reliable sources, and there is no other use for it, that should be the title. Period. If that were true for every single article, then this system would be just as simple as the previous one. And this system could be trivial at least for those articles to whom this condition applies, if that's are first and steadfast rule.

But what to do with the remaining articles, all the ones that don't have a single obvious name without any other uses? Well, we go from there, perhaps asking if the topic of this article is primary for the name under consideration. We also have to consider whether there are other names that are commonly used to refer to the topic, and whether to prefer them.

There are really only a few key questions that have to be asked, and answered. Again, this is no where nearly as complicated as real life. And if we just decided what those questions are, and what to do for each possible answer, our system could be almost as simple and deterministic as the sequence number system I described. I say almost because some questions are likely to remain subjective. For example determining whether a topic is primary, or which of several names best meets the criteria. But there again if we decided how those criteria should be prioritized, then those issues would become much simpler and deterministic too.

What is the harm in being more definitive about how to make these calls in various situations?

I just proposed the moving of Fixed-winged aircraft to Airplane. Why? Because that particular title , I believe, sets a very bad precedent. I don't know of any other prominent article that so blatantly goes against the common name rule. So the bad precedent it sets is that using the most common name isn't all that important. Being soft on common name leads to problems such as seen by the eloquent arguing of Jake at Female genital cutting in which he freely admits Female genital mutilation is more commonly used, but simply dismisses that because some sources in some contexts prefer FGC because FGM is offensive in some communities, and he says neutrality requires us to choose that too. I mean, it's a good argument. No one is being persuaded by it, but, in what is our essentially-anything-goes system, you can't really blame him for using it, or anyone for using any argument really. The problem with that, again, is it leads to a lot of wasted time and energy.

You might ask - "well, what are you doing?" My goal, the stamp I wish to make on WP, is to change title decision-making so it's much more streamlined, deterministic and definitive than it currently is, and ceases to be such a source of practically endless debate, disagreement and consternation. I envision a Wikipedia in which people naturally agree on titles with much higher consensus, and there are only a handful of move proposals submitted per week, if not per month. That's what I'm trying to achieve, and this essay is part of that. Trying to persuade you to join me in that effort is too.

What are you trying to accomplish with respect to titles at WP? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming quite a good conversation. Cheers for the good thinking - we need more editors like you.

What am I trying to accomplish with respect to titles? Hmm. I'm trying to help complete requests, primarily, and move things along. Obviously, I want to be "good at" closing discussions, i.e., I want my closes to be stable, and not on the basis of my authority, but on the basis of their "correctness", in a sense that I'm not going to make entirely precise right now.

If there's a stamp I'd like to leave... that's gonna take a few paragraphs, but I'm not going out until 9, so here goes. The one-broad-stroke version is this: I'm trying to grow from the soil what I'm concerned you might be trying to build.

You might already know this, but I was actually the first one to put a list of criteria up, at the beginning of WP:AT. It must have been a couple of years ago. Anyway, people were arguing on the talk page about some edit or another, and I just BOLDly plunked 4 bullet points up there. One got renamed, and a fifth one was added. Yeah, for someone who speaks out so much against rules, I do have some experience writing them. ;) When I wrote those criteria down, I was attempting to document what actually happens at move requests, as I've observed.

I try to close RM discussions in a way that makes me a much more passive observer of community actions than an activist of any kind. Anything that hasn't drawn an objection in a week, I tend to let through pretty uncritically. Small unanimous decisions, I treat about the same. Those just become data: the community did this, and 3 people noticed. When there's some actual dispute, I weigh arguments in light of policy and context, and I make a call. If I care very much which title "wins", then I walk on by and let someone else close it.

Anyway, it was those observations that gave rise to naming criteria in the first place, and it's in those continued observations that I hope to find out what their relative weights are, and on what variables do those weights depend.

Trouble is, that's a very hard math problem. I'm a mathematician, so I might think of it as a system of equations with multiple variables, and you're not even sure how many variables there are! You might need to see a whole lot of equations before you're sure how many unknowns there are, and you might need to see a lot more before you can say anything definite about how those unknowns relate to each other.

We've pinned down, or hope that we've pinned down, 5 variables that seem to bear most of the weight in titling disputes. It would be great to know how much weight to give each one, but we're not gonna know that by reasoning and philosophizing and talking about it. We're not going to settle it in a debate, and then apply the results of that debate to Wikipedia. We have to ask Wikipedia how to do it, and then we have to learn how to listen for the answer.

I have to admit... we're not very good at that kind of listening, yet. We're learning, but it's hard. Here's a link: User:GTBacchus/RM closings. It's not remotely up-to-date. I don't remember exactly what made me start that collection, but it had something to do with diacritics, I'm pretty sure. The idea was to use those as some kind of record, that we could categorize past decisions according to what principles were involved, and then keep track of which titles are stable in the long run. We could learn so much, but right now it's impossible to sift through all the history.

One idea that's been batted around is that of adding variables to the {{move}} template. Imagine a move request that looks like: {{move|King Foo II|Foòbar Barfoo II of Stanstan|honorific=yes|commonname=yes|diacritics=yes}}. Sounds like a tough one; bring your gas mask! If we did that, then we could pull up a list of past move requests in which diacritics were involved, see what the outcomes were, and which ones were challenged or reversed. So much information!

I'm trying to pay more attention to which criteria go into each decision, and the Gandhi move I'm chewing on now is a wonderful example. There's so much going on there, and a good chunk of it is total nonsense!

That's the thing, though... I'm okay with the nonsense. I mean, if the noise drowns out the signal, that's bad, but that doesn't happen much. Closers are better than I think some people imagine at knowing what to ignore. The status quo is messy, but we're learning from it. Learning is messy. Sometimes we have to hear a particular piece of nonsense (or sense) a bunch of times before it becomes clear to the collective mind that it's nonsense (or sense). Even after that, we need reminders.

Maybe I'm just very patient. The answers to our questions about how we make titling decisions will emerge from the noise. We just have remain alert, and keep talking about it. Observing and talking will lead to eventual group knowledge, which is then very, very easy to write down. There's no rush to crystallize and codify best titling practices. There is some harm in rushing, because once something is written down, it starts accruing inertia, and weight, and it gets harder to change. We can wait until we're very certain, and then the edits to policy are totally uncontroversial.

Someone said something useful about essays over at WT:AT. Advertizing really is how you think about it, and you've got to be kind of coy about it. Posting directly to the "See Also" of a policy page is bold - if it's not something 95% of Wikipedia already agrees with, then you're likely to get reverted, and there's no sense fighting over it. The "see also" section of a guideline is easier, and the "see also" section of another essay is pretty much fair game for almost anything. The indicator of success is that you see people you've never even met, citing your essay in a discussion you didn't even know about. (Feels pretty good, actually.)

Ok, it's nine o'clock, so I have to go. I think I've said most of what I wanted to say. I'm going to look at this essay more carefully and probably comment in a few hours, or else tomorrow.

We have more in common than was at first apparent. Good evening to you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

GTB, this discussion, along with that at WT:TITLE, has been illuminating. Thank you very much. I'm going to give all this more thought and will ultimately respond with an expansion to this essay, or with additional essays. Whatever it ends up being, my rough draft/work in progress is User:Born2cycle/Titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert of added bias

I just reverted this edit which changed this neutral can be statement:

The purpose of this essay is to specify a simple step-by-step recipe-like algorithm that can be used by editors to consistently and uniformly determine a title for any article in Wikipedia as objectively and deterministically as is reasonably possible in order to reduce the incidence of questions, disagreements, debates and discussions about article titles.

to this biased some editors think should be statement:

The purpose of this essay is to specify a simple step-by-step recipe-like algorithm that some editors think should be used to consistently and uniformly determine a title for any article in Wikipedia as objectively and deterministically as is reasonably possible in order to reduce the incidence of questions, disagreements, debates and discussions about article titles.

and also added this other biased statement:

Other editors disagree with this approach.

If you can't find anything in the essay as written about which you can't say anyone disagrees, please don't change it so you can say that. If there is any existing content which is contrary to consensus, please identify on this talk page, with explanation, and, if you know how, fix it so that it is consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)