Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Please see Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization?, which raises WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and MOS:TRADEMARK issues. While the song in question is at this moment only treated inside the article on the album on which it was released (and thus in a formal sense involves no WP:AT issues like COMMONNAME and OFFICIALNAME_, it's likely, as with so many Lady Gaga songs, that it will soon enough have its own article, and the RfC ongoing might as well get the title right now rather than later. The RfC is being "advertised" because it was noted that the discussion was circular between two or three participants, and even after RfCization, it's still mostly the same parties, and so needs broader input. See also Talk:Ultra high definition television#Requested move 4 (ongoing), which involves much of the same sort of question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed lots of times. Article titles do not follow arbitrary rules made up by a few passionate editors who dominate the conversations on the MOS talk pages, but instead follows common usage in reliable sources. It was arguments about this issue that brought about the Arbcom ruling so why not let sleeping dogs lie and just drop the insistence that article titles MUST follow MOS rules? If the insistence is dropped then there is no conflict imaginary or otherwise!

For most article titles there is no difference between the tile dictated by following the AT policy and naming conventions, and the title that would be derived by following the MOS rules. However there is be conflict if some editors insist on following the MOS rules when the sources dictate an alternative name which is supported by the AT policy and naming conventions. If those editors who inappropriately cite MOS guidelines when this happens were to stop doing so, then there is no conflict between the outcome dictated following the MOS guideline and the outcome reached by following the AT policy and its naming conventions. -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn’t our MOS ultimately say to follow the sources, anyway? I know MOS:TM does at least. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not; that would be the antithesis of a style guideline. MOS:TM doesn't quite say that, either, but says follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', and recommends to choose the most normally styled English-like rendering of a trademark that can be found in sources (that is, we don't follow what most sources do, but we also don't style things in a way that sources don't; if a trademark is always all-caps, we need to accept that, but if some sources render it more normally, we can, too; see for example Talk:Lego/Archive_6#Move?). Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not quite... Yes, they both say follow sources... but while WP:AT says to favor the most commonly used version (the COMMONNAME), MOS:TM says to favor the style that most closely resembles standard English. Now, usually the COMMONNAME takes the style that most closely resembles standard English. But occasionally it doesn't. That's when we get conflict and confusion between this policy and the MOS. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no conflict. We follow COMMONNAME to choose a title, but the MOS tells us how to style it. That sometimes affects caps and punctuation a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The MOS guideline covers content it does not affect this policy for which there are additional naming conventions (so there is conflict if someone insists on a style of title using a Wikipedia self created style guideline over the policy of following usage in reliable sources). As Blueboar says this is not usually a problem because common usage and the MOS derived style are in harmony but occasionally they are not. -- PBS (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon... if there were no conflict, we wouldn't keep having discussions where people note that there is a conflict. A lot of editors (myself included) reject the idea that NAMEs and STYLEs can (or should) be separated as sharply as you try to separate them. If the various MOS pages were to adopt a COMMONSTYLE clause, the debates would end. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify what I meant by "no conflict". I mean that most editors see that there's no conflict between TITLE and MOS; that both can always be applied without contradiction. The conflict is between these most editors and the few that want the styling guidelines of the MOS to apply only in the article text but not in the article title; trying to change this will certainly lead to add contradictions, like the lede sentence using different caps or punctuation than the title. If anyone is suggesting that titles be sharply separated, it's you. And COMMONSTYLE, letting sources weigh in on how each word, phrase, or article is styles, would lead to endless chaos and arguments. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"most editors" "trying to change this" are those an intentional rhetorical construct or an unintentional ones? Have you forgotten the failure of your Rfc (7 January 2013) on this issue to gain a consensus (Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 40#RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal)? I think that by using those construct of rhetoric you are implying that there has been an agreement and that only "some" are trying to change a status quo while there is no evidence either of a minority of editors (some) or that there has been a time when there was no difference between the AT approach and the MOS approach. I have repeatedly asked where there was ever agreement for the statement in the MOS "The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly in the section below on punctuation, applies to all parts of an article, including the title." no such agreement to this statement on the AT policy page has ever been provided (quite the opposite see that RfC), indeed there does not seem to be much evidence of agreement for it in the talk pages of the MOS. Besides "letting sources weigh in on how each word, phrase is styled" is common practice when there is a dispute irrespective of the title of an article: is it "an historian" or "a historian" is it "an herb garden" "a herb garden", "The Americans captured the town", "The American patriots captured the town" or the "American Patriots captured the town" etc. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the narrow majority supporting that RFC doesn't quite justify my "most editors" claim, but I do still believe it's true that most editors see that there's no conflict between TITLE and MOS. The RFC tried to make an explicit statement that should not be necessary, which is what caused some of the oppose votes. You agreed that article titles should usually be styled in accordance with the MOS, but wanted to leave room for exceptions on consensus. But guidelines always leave room for exceptions on consensus, so I'm not sure why you opposed it. Reviewing that RFC, it looks like it might be time to try again to get something like that made explicit. But I'll let someone else... Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the RfC, I sense that a consensus was very near, just around a bend, over a hill, or behind a tree, just not sure which. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

PBS: Those aren't comparable cases, though, or even relevant in this forum. A/an historian is a MOS:ENGVAR matter, depending on whether the variety of English in question drops the initial H (UK does, American doesn't, generally). A/an herb isn't even a serious question, since the h is silent in most major ENGVARs. Americans vs. American patriots is a WP:NPOV matter (hint: it's Americans). American patriots/Patriots is simply a MOS:CAPS matter (hint: don't capitalize since it's not a proper name). None of those are WP:AT cases at all. We don't use the indefinite article titles. We don't use sentences like "The Americans captured the town" as titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment – the "MANiCURE" song listing styling question is an interesting one, but is not about an article title and so has no relation to WP:TITLE. If there are conflicts within the MOS between treating it as a trademark or something else, or about the implications of what those sections say, then the MOS is the place where it will be hammered out. And if anyone eventually makes an article out of it, of course the same styling will apply to the article title. To go the other way, and write so-called "policy" about how to title articles, and then argue that the odd styling there developed relatively independently of the MOS should apply to text in articles, would sound rather crazy, no? Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There is and has long been a section in WP:TITLE dealing with style: WP:TITLEFORMAT including trade marks. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The subsection on trademarks in title, WP:TITLETM, specifically defers to the MOS for more information. Most of the rest about title-specific considerations, none in conflict with the MOS. And none is this is relevant to the MANiCURE question, since it's not a title anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Manicure" vs. MANiCURE" case doesn't legitimately raise WP:AT issues, but they are being raised nonetheless, probably on the basis that at any given moment that song may have its own article. My post here isn't to direct people to that RM/RfC, but rather to point up some examples in a long string of them of a need to clarify that AT does not make up its own style rules that contradict MOS. A surprising number of RM regulars are convinced that it does, and it doesn't seem to matter how many RM discussions fail to go their way, they still insist on it. So, AT needs to explicitly say otherwise so this disruptive, time-wasting, temper-exacerbating nonsense draws to a permanent close. We don't need another ten years of this tendentiousness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem, I think, is the absence of a shared understanding of what "style" means in this context. It's easy to say that we use AT to choose the title and then MOS to style it, but my experience is that editors can agree with this proposition but then fail to agree on specific cases because they don't agree what transformations are just changes to "style". The "specialist style" issue can be involved, because a change that may appear to be just "style" to one editor can represent a change of meaning to another editor with more familiarity with the conventions of the domain. So I think that clarifying AT in the way suggested (although worthwhile) isn't enough. Perhaps an essay might be a way of providing "worked examples" and so building consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment – on the Ultra-high-definition television article, I also don't see how WP:TITLE has anything to say. This is about MOS:HYPHEN (and about the odd process by which current hyphenless title was chosen by a RM closer even though nobody had ever requested it). HYPHEN suggests Hyphens can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); where non-experts are part of the readership, a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases, such as those in Wikipedia's scientific articles: gas-phase reaction dynamics. There is no reason in this article to not help the reader by styling with the hyphenation that best indicates to the reader how to parse it. This styling is among many used in sources, and is not uncommon. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the point Blueboar and myself have been making -- that usually the style in sources and the MOS are in agreement or at least do not contradict each other. More to the point is what would you support if the use of hyphens was uncommon among the majority of sources? Would you then argue that they should not be used because they are uncommon among sources or would you argue that editors should ignore common usage and follow the MOS style guide? -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, sources are very mixed about such things as hyphen usage, as the data section at the RM shows for that case. Typically, publications written for a narrow or specialist audience omit hyphens more, since they are not needed for clarity for readers who already know the relations between words in common phrases. For example, small-cell carcinoma, which needs the hyphen to let readers know that it's not a cell carcinoma that's small, is an example in the AMA style guide that got modified in a recent edition; it became common enough in the medical community that they now recommend dropping the hyphen. So should WP drop it? Of course not; we want readers to understand it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that hyphens should be used in titles if the use of the hyphen is important to reader comprehension. In such cases, it should not be required that a majority of quality sources use the hyphen, just that a number do, and we can use editorial judgement to say whether the hyphen is used for wide-audience comprehensibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe its a verity of English thing, but I really really do not find "south east England" any harder to comprehend than "south-east England". If Brits did then presumably South East England would usually be "South-east England" or like the Americans concatenated to Southeastern United States. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since in this case "south (east England)" means essentially the same as "(south east) England", it's to be expected that they are as easy to parse. The relevant cases are like "small (cell carcinoma)" and "(small cell) carcinoma", where a hyphen makes the second parse clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And in the case of "Ultra high definition television"? -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd hyphenate it, but neither "ultra" nor "high" obviously applies to "television" as opposed to "definition", so not hyphenating is acceptable, whereas "small" could equally well be applied to "carcinoma" or "cell". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ultra- is a prefix not a word in mainstream, formal English, so that part has to be hyphenated anyway as it's being used in this phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: is that a prescription about English or a description? If a description, it's barely correct any longer, in my experience (as also shown by a Google Ngram comparing "ultra-high" with "ultra high"). "Ultra" is often now used in a way similar to "very"; there's no real difference in usage between VHF="very high frequency" and UHF="ultra high frequency" (a Google Ngram shows the unhyphenated form is more common) or between "I'm very happy" and the slang "I'm ultra happy". ("Ultra" is also used as a noun, as e.g. at Ultras – although shouldn't this be at "Ultra"?) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your n-grams link shows the opposite of what you say. The hyphenated is still considerably more common. Certainly if you want to use ultra as a word, as in "I'm ultra happy", you would not use a hyphen; but for an "ultra-happy person" the hyphen helps the reader parse it, whether you consider a word or a combining form. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Peter coxhead, I don't see how that's relevant; WP is written in mainstream, formal English, not slang, and not deep-geek technical jargon (which we know from many previous RMs and MOS discussions has a tendency to drop hyphens in ways WP doesn't tolerate especially in article titles, e.g. "sickle cell disease" vs. sickle-cell disease. Maybe my actual background in linguistics and anthropology makes it easier for me somehow, but I have little difficulty separating linguistic description in making observations about actual usage in the real world, and necessary prescriptiveness for WP:AT and WP:MOS to actually function; their purpose is to prescribe best practice, for our readers' benefit primarily, editors' secondarily, not describe what the world is doing. If it were the latter, we'd just give up on having any rules, because real-world language use is always inconsistent and changing. For me, it's the exactly the same distinction as neutrally, anthropologically observing a cargo cult and passing no value judgement on it as an expression of the human quest to explain and influence the mysterious, vs. objecting to someone trying to base US foreign policy, or how to get my rent paid, on what one would do in a particular cargo cult. Being scientifically observational of differing applied approaches as a third party external to the systems applying them, is completely distinct from being an applier of selected approaches within a system from which one wishes to obtain satisfactory results. >;-) Anyway, I've clarified my wording above, with <ins>...</ins>; that ultra- is a prefix not a word in this sort of construction, is both a description and a prescription when it comes to mainstream, formal English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My comment was mainly a standard linguist's response to an apparently prescriptive statement about language. I agree (of course) that the MOS should not attempt to mirror the variability of actual language uses and typographic practices in the real world; the point of a manual of style is to choose between options where there is a real choice – it doesn't need to say anything on matters on which everyone agrees.

I do have a more serious point, which I made above, and which always seems to be passed over, so I'll repeat it once more. The populism of WP:COMMONNAME, which explicitly says that we prefer the name that is most commonly used, is clearly seen by many editors to be inconsistent with the prescriptivism of the MOS, which is why "COMMONSTYLE" proposals, either general or specific, come up again and again, and why in practice there are countless examples of the style of the source being applied regardless of the MOS. There's nowhere I can find that explains carefully to editors outside the MOS community (a) the precise distinction between "name" and "style" (b) why "COMMONNAME" is good but "COMMONSTYLE" would be bad. If you read through the discussion about titling at Talk:Ultra high definition television, it's clear that many (most?) participants don't understand the name/style distinction and think that "COMMONNAME" = "COMMONSTYLE". A clear essay which could be referenced would be useful and might (ever the optimist!) help to shorten this kind of discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment – in regards to the Ultra high definition television article the only two article titles it has had since 2010 that followed Wikipedia policy were "Ultra High Definition Television" and "Ultra high definition television". As for hyphenation it varies based on the term, the country, and the time period since some terms have lost hyphens over time. There is no guideline in Wikipedia that mandates the use of hyphens for article titles so unlike capitalization which has Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) I would say that hyphenation does fall under WP:COMMONNAME. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we have no mandates, and no styling guidelines specific to titles. But are you saying that the recent title Ultra-high-definition television somehow did not follow policy? Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that if a move is contested that a requested move is needed. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what he's asking, and I think you know that (or certainly should, if you're actually following this discussion). We're talking about the content of the title, not process adherence. Please don't change or confuse the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi all! You might want to peek at this RM and see what you think... Talk:Erhai Lake#Requested move #2 Red Slash 03:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• What we need is some language explaining what "consistency" means and how it should be applied and weighed against other factors. Fortunately, I have been drafting just such language, and this is what I have so far:

Consistency in titles means that titles for the same kind of subject should not differ unnecessarily.

Where a topic has been determined to be the primary topic of a term, then subtopics of that topic should generally follow the same primary topic determination.

For example, the primary topic of the term "China" has been determined to be the Asian country formally titled "The People's Republic of China", the primary topic of "Florida" has been determined to be the U.S. State, and the primary topic of "Paris" has been determined to be the city in France. Therefore, despite the existence of other topics sharing the name (like the "Republic of China", "Florida, Uruguay", and "Paris, Texas", titles for subtopics relating to these places should be at "Military of China", "Government of Florida", and "History of Paris", and not at "Military of the People's Republic of China", "Government of Florida (United States)", and "History of Paris, France".

Disambiguators should also be consistent:

The terms "surname", "given name", and "family name" could all be used to indicate that a article is about the portion of a name that reflects a person's ancestry. However, historically, these articles have used "(surname)" as a disambiguator. This term is also more concise, and is more precise because it avoids some potential ambiguity (in some cultures, the surname comes before the given name, and therefore is not "last"; sometimes people change names, so that they have a chronologically "first" and "last" surname; sometimes a given name is used in several generations of the same family, and is considered a "family name"). Therefore, the universal convention in Wikipedia is that all articles about this portion of a name use "(surname)" as a disambiguator where a disambiguator is needed. If an article on a surname is created at a title using "(last name)" as a disambiguator, it should be moved to a title using "(surname)" as a disambiguator.

The terms "film", "movie", and "motion picture" could all be used as disambiguators, but the convention is to use "(film)". Although this may arguably be a more ambiguous term, given the many meanings of film", circumstances where confusion is likely are rare, and it is more concise. This disambiguator is used even where a film could be identified by its genre or year of release; where two films share the same name, we consistently disambiguate them by using the year of release followed by the word "film", as in The Last Stand (1984 film) and The Last Stand (2013 film), not The Last Stand (1984) and The Last Stand (2013), even though nothing else occurred in these years that is ambiguous to films.

Exceptions:

Shorter forms for subtopics names

Usher (entertainer); but Usher discography, not Usher (entertainer) discography

Brandy Norwood; but Brandy discography, not Brandy Norwood discography

Subjects noted in multiple fields may have a disambiguator only reflecting one of those fields. Subjects may relevant to multiple fields, as with Wolverine (character) (not Wolverine (comics) because the character is well known in media other than comics.

WP:ENGVAR - we do not change titles so that all say Center versus Centre, or Labor versus Labour.

• This is what I have so far, but I'm sure something useful can be expanded out of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The term film was agreed upon back in 2005. I think this proposal is a mistake. Consistency is by far the less important of the principles that we use for naming an article, and a side product of bullet pointing it in the "Deciding on an article title" -- that section was far better as a paragraph -- as if it is of equal consideration with common name.

As a bullet point it is used by people spotting patterns of groupings (like the canals on Mars) to promote a descriptive name over a common name, as for example happened with the article titles "Military of [State]" instead of the actual common name of the armed forces see for example Talk:British Armed Forces/Archive 1#Requested move - 2005. A better idea would be to state that while consistency is important it should not be promoted in favour of the other criteria. You are doing exactly the same thing with "Military of China" as part of a pattern (based on the article China) because although you are using it to propose names under China, its effects are to suggest (because it is another case of consistency) that Military of the United Kingdom is the best article title for the British Armed Forces.-- PBS (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Consistency (which is useful to readers searching for related articles) can be satisfied via redirects, and doesn't have to be in the actual article title. So it's good to have redirects at "Military of [State]" regardless of the common name of the military in question. Similarly where a film is at its 'bare' title there should be a redirect with "(film)" added. I agree with PBS that the proposal over-emphasizes consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are useful for editors, but they do not show up in Google Searches, as Google ignores redirects and picks up on strings in articles. As to "useful to readers searching for related articles" If a reader wants to find an article on British Armed Forces are they more likely to search for "British Armed Forces" or know that Wikipedia uses consistency and have placed it under "Military of the United Kingdom"? I think only editors who have a deep knowledge of WP:AT would make that association. -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I work with plant articles, where the alternative titles used as redirects generally appear in the article (e.g. English names when the article is at the scientific name); Google searches aren't then a problem. But generally, yes, I agree this is an issue. I don't agree about needing a deep knowledge of WP:AT. If you've read the article Military of Guatemala you might be interested in the military of its neighbours; an obvious search then to use within Wikipedia is Military of Mexico. Anyway, all I'm arguing is that where there is partial consistency, it can be extended via redirects rather than article titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Consistency is in some ways the weakest of the five goals... it is absolutely a valid goal, but we do make a lot of exceptions once we start balancing it against the other four criteria. If we have two potential titles, X and Y... and X is significantly more Recognizable than Y, but Y is more Consistent with the titles of similar articles... we usually tend to down play Consistency in favor Recognizably. Not always... but usually. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. This is what I get for rushing out a draft. My point about Military of China is not that the article should necessarily be titled that, but that the title "Military of China" should be (or lead to) an article on the Military of China (and not on the military of something else interpreted to mean "China"). Recognizability does trump consistency, but the biggest part of consistency that I deal with is in disambiguators and titles that are asserted to be ambiguous, so to a degree my thinking is focused on that. It is important, however, that if the primary topic of Paris is the city in France, and the article on that city is titled Paris, then an article on the history of that city should be titled History of Paris, and not History of Paris France, and an article with the title History of Paris should be expected to be about the history of Paris, Texas, nor should it be a disambiguation page about things called "Paris" that have a history. Military of the United Kingdom is not the best example, because it is an entity with a specific more common name. Consider, rather, History of the United Kingdom. An article with that title should not be about the history of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands or the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, nor should it be a disambiguation page listing these possibilities. bd2412 T 12:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I got your point the first time and did not think you meant "rename British Armed Forces to Military of the United Kingdom".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten my draft to accommodate the concerns raised thus far:

Consistency:

Consistency in titles means that titles for the same kind of subject should not differ unnecessarily. Where multiple titles are available, and where titles are otherwise equally usable in terms of recognizability, naturalness, preciseness, and conciseness, then the title to be used should be the one most consistent with titles used for similar or related topics in Wikipedia.

Topic names should be consistent. Where a title has been determined to be the common name of a term, then subtopics of that topic should generally follow the same common name determination. For example: For example:

• Musician Cat Stevens was born Steven Demetre Georgiou, and currently uses the name Yusuf Islam. However, because the common name for this subject has been determined to be Cat Stevens, the article on his discography is titled Cat Stevens discography (not Steven Demetre Georgiou discography or Yusuf Islam discography).
• The city of Gdańsk in Poland is also known as Danzig. Therefore, subtopics are titled Politics of Gdańsk and History of Gdańsk, not Politics of Danzig or History of Danzig.
• Taiwan is also known as the Republic of China, and occupies the whole of the island of Formosa. The article on the geography of this country is therefore at Geography of Taiwan, and both Geography of the Republic of China and Formosa redirect to this title.

Conversely, where a topic has been determined to be the primary topic of a term, subtopics should follow that primary topic determination. For example, the primary topic of the term "China" has been determined to be the Asian country formally titled "The People's Republic of China", the primary topic of "Florida" has been determined to be the U.S. State, and the primary topic of "Paris" has been determined to be the city in France. Therefore, despite the existence of other topics sharing the name (like the "Republic of China", "Florida, Uruguay", and "Paris, Texas", titles for subtopics relating to these places should be at "Football in China", "Government of Florida", and "History of Paris", and not at "Military of the People's Republic of China", "Government of Florida (United States)", and "History of Paris, France".

An exception to this rule is where a specific subtopic has its own common name. For example, the common name of a national legislature or military is likely to be the formal name of that body. Therefore, although we have Military of Guatemala and Military of Turkmenistan, the title Military of the United Kingdom redirects to British Armed Forces and Military of China redirects to People's Liberation Army. Although the city of Gdańsk is at the title determined to be the common name of that city, the formal name Free City of Danzig is used for the article on a specifically named historical period of that city. Where a subtopic does not have a distinct common name, the title should be at a name consistent with the common name of the topic; for example, Sport in China, not Sport in the People's Republic of China.

Exception: Shorter forms for subtopics names:

Where a topic has a long or disambiguated title, unambiguous subtopics of that topic may incorporate a shorter form of that title for conciseness. For example:

• Madonna (entertainer); but Madonna bibliography, not Madonna (entertainer) bibliography
• Brandy Norwood; but Brandy discography, not Brandy Norwood discography

Exception: WP:ENGVAR

WP:ENGVAR supports having regionally appropriate spellings. We therefore do not change titles so that all consistently use one regional spelling. For example, United States labor law, but Indian labour law; Sport in the Australian Capital Territory, but Sports in Washington, D.C..

Disambiguators should also be consistent:

The terms "surname", "given name", and "family name" could all be used to indicate that a article is about the portion of a name that reflects a person's ancestry. However, historically, these articles have used "(surname)" as a disambiguator. This term is also more concise, and is more precise because it avoids some potential ambiguity (in some cultures, the surname comes before the given name, and therefore is not "last"; sometimes people change names, so that they have a chronologically "first" and "last" surname; sometimes a given name is used in several generations of the same family, and is considered a "family name"). Therefore, the universal convention in Wikipedia is that all articles about this portion of a name use "(surname)" as a disambiguator where a disambiguator is needed. If an article on a surname is created at a title using "(last name)" as a disambiguator, it should be moved to a title using "(surname)" as a disambiguator.

The terms "film", "movie", and "motion picture" could all be used as disambiguators, but the convention is to use "(film)". Although this may arguably be a more ambiguous term, given the many meanings of film", circumstances where confusion is likely are rare, and it is more concise. This disambiguator is used even where a film could be identified by its genre or year of release; where two films share the same name, we consistently disambiguate them by using the year of release followed by the word "film", as in The Last Stand (1984 film) and The Last Stand (2013 film), not The Last Stand (1984) and The Last Stand (2013), even though nothing else occurred in these years that is ambiguous to films.

Individual projects may develop their own standards for naming subjects within a given field, although it must be noted that some topics are of importance to multiple fields, and may have a disambiguator only reflecting one of those fields.

I hope this moves things in the direction that people are thinking. I would also like to note that in writing this draft, I was motivated in part by the recent discussions at Talk:Mikhaylovsky (last name)‎#Requested move and Talk:Wolverine (character)#Page move back discussion, again. I would like to avoid the kind of strife that comes from a lack of guidance on the role of consistency. bd2412 T 19:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This would make for an excellent essay... but I think it's a bit much for the policy itself. Consistency makes for a very good "broad statement of principle"... but you get all sorts of debates and problem when you start to spell out "rules" that relate to consistency. You suddenly find that there are a ton of exceptions to even usually good rules... for example: There is a huge exception to your "use Gdańsk instead of Danzig" rule... Historical context. In a historical context, it might be absolutely appropriate to use "Danzig" in a title. To give the most noted example using another city: the city of Volgograd was (for a while) historically known as Stalingrad... and while we use appropriately use Volgograd in article titles relating to the city in a modern context... we use Stalingrad in titles that are in a historical context: it's Battle of Stalingrad not Battle of Volgograd. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that specific issue is captured in the "subtopic has its own common name" provision. I would assume that the common name in those cases would be the one matching the historical context. My thinking is that without spelling out any rules of consistency you still get all sorts of debates, like the ones I noted as my inspiration here, and many bad titles to boot. There was a period a while back where someone was moving all the "of China" subtopics to "of the People's Republic of China" and turning the base page titles into WP:TWODABS disambiguation pages with links to the respective articles for China and Taiwan. It took a number of discussions to iron out the principle that if "China" is a primary topic, then "Government of China" should be about the Government of China. bd2412 T 20:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am all in favor of this text as written and as revisable. It sums our naming policy up with regard to consistency... which has not been really addressed prior to this. Listen, it's a bit long, but that's the entire point of policy, so that we don't have unwritten rules but rather written "best practices" (or at least "present practices"). Ten points. Red Slash 22:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

To me, consistency primarily means that parenthetically disambiguated titles should use the same wording as similar disambiguated subjects. Also, titles about similar subjects should trend (but not necessarily) toward following a pattern, especially if we have an established naming convention guideline. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar such details are better off in an essay.

I suggest that rather than a large change, the wording that was in place for a couple of months in 2010 as policy is reinstated:

• Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

-- PBS (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of these proposals reflect either what is presently meant by "consistency" or what should be meant by "consistency", although I don't think either what is presently meant or what should be meant provides guidance toward the move in question. Some of these proposals would provide guidance in favor of the move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposals for the use of common disambiguators and for primary topic titles also applying to subtopics reflect common practices, and are practices that make the encyclopedia less likely to have random and confusing titles, and therefore easier for readers to use. We do have editors intransigently arguing for inconsistent titles from time to time as though those practices don't exist, and must therefore hunt for the kind of examples that I have collected above. bd2412 T 11:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly concur with PBS about reinstating the 2010 bullet. Also, while I agree with much of what BD2412 is covering at such length, it seems to me far too much to add to the policy. Even single-word changes in this policy can have far-ranging effects. I'd put it in an essay; BD2412's reasons for gathering those examples make sense, but they'd still serve that purpose in an essay. In the interim, put back the one-liner PBS quotes above, and work on it from there (e.g. change "consider giving" to "give"; "consider" in a policy is as useless as "maybe" in a law). Then if we feel it necessary, start adding one point at a time from what BD2412 is writing, and see if it's accepted widely and what effects it has, then maybe add another later. PS: I say all this as a stronger-than-average supporter of consistency, certainly above conciseness (within the bounds of common sense). I think that the current level of WP:COMMONNAME fetishism going on is bad idea. Arguments like "redirects exist for a reason" used against consistency apply equally against using unclear names just because they are short, or using commoner names just for being common even when they don't work well in the context of the rest of Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Pursuant to the above comments, I have created an essay at Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles, which I believe collects and explains widely accepted practices for the maintenance of consistency of article titles, and exceptions to the same. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Consistency in article titles. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

concise v consistency

I have been reading up on all I could find about title naming and concise v consistency v common name v official. The more I read the more I am confused. There apparently does need to be some guidelines but in the end it apparently may have limited success.

From what I understand WP:COMMONNAME is generally more important as what something is commonly called in references. It was stated above "Individual projects may develop their own standards for naming subjects within a given field, although it must be noted that some topics are of importance to multiple fields, and may have a disambiguator only reflecting one of those fields." and this is when things can go awry in my opinion. Apparently there is no "oversight committee" on WikiProjects and if a project is not really important to the Wikipedia community as a whole a few editors can effect a "project" renaming that does not reflect Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Wikipedia naming conventions, or overall Wikipedia consensus. A person either has to hope consensus can change such as more editors joining the project that disagree with arbitrarily renaming articles, or stop editing that particular field. I made edits to a lighthouse article and renamed it to the common name. I became aware there was a project "standard" to rename all such "lighthouse" articles "light". I found this out when editing Sabine Pass Light and seeking a name change (the 2nd) to the far more common Sabine Pass Lighthouse. I waited over a year before attempting to get the name changed again and then only because I saw where the apparently common name may still be important when I ran across Bodie Island Lighthouse.

I gave a list of references and reasoning and I am apparently the only editor wishing to contribute to the article. An "oppose" was "Moving this article would needlessly take the article away from our established naming convention, by which the vast majority of lighthouses are entitled "Light"...". I can't find a relevant naming convention so assume this is the project "standard" being referred to.

The project has determined that using "light" is more correct regardless of anything else, and that they now have a naming convention instead of a "standard" practice. This is regardless of the fact that the name has always been Sabine Pass Lighthouse (light station when built), became under USCG control for only 13 years, is not a USCG light now or for years as it is abandoned, and the historical, common, and legal name uses "lighthouse". When the subject is brought up "consistency" is a given reason because other articles are like named "except" consistency is formed because of the project renaming.

This means that pretty much any project can direct the names of titles and if someone wishes to change it they must deal with the members of the "project" that of course will have determined the "convention name", regardless if the name follows any policies and guidelines or not. This means that what you end up with most of the time: " Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.", and "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice" gets trumped by "consider giving similar articles similar titles". Most projects support the more common name so maybe WP:WikiProject Lighthouses is just an exception and I am unfortunate to have an interest in lighthouses and not USCG "lights". Lighthouse is common the world over, needing no disambiguation, where "light" does not mean a "lighthouse".

I would like articles to use the more common name (and more often natural), being consistent only when not against policies and guidelines or common consensus, so I think "consistent" is far the less important than concise. Otr500 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That isn't really an issue of conciseness versus consistency, as "Light" is also more concise than "Lighthouse"; it is an issue of common name, which should predominate over both other factors. bd2412 T 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your fast reply. It seems it is still supported that using the more common name is important. I am not sure your reasoning how "light" (an object that illuminates) can be more concise than a particular light as in a lighthouse. If we are discussing a lighthouse in particular, especially one that has "NOT" had a "light" in it since 1952 (about 61 years, as MANY historical lighthouse are) would you still feel it more concise to use light over lighthouse? I am just trying to gain logical reasoning so when I edit, or make comments, such as Talk:3d Cavalry Regiment#Requested move 2014 I can be reasonably sure I am giving good advise or that my reasoning on comments and decisions are also based on policies and guidelines as well as consensus. That does little good when a brick wall is encountered though. Otr500 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Otr500, concision simply means: which name is shorter? In this case "light" is five letters shorter than "lighthouse". But I think you, BD2412, and I all agree than using the most common name is more important that using the shortest one. I personally have no idea whether "Sabine Pass Lighthouse" is more common than "Sabine Pass Light" in reliable sources, but if it is, I certainly agree that should trump a wikiproject's desire for consistency. There are a few cases where there's consensus to use a less common name to preserve consistency (the guideline mentions using Bothell, Washington instead of Bothell and Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) instead of Leeds North West, although I disagree with both choices), but I don't think lighthouses are one of them.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks. I do agree that there are times when a different name should be used which means there should always be "exceptions to the rule". I don't just create a bare "stub" to fill a slot as I don't like that and articles or article names that are referenced, that appear to have been "lost", are ones I like to "find". While creating stubs is important I prefer to find enough information (through references) to provide enough information to matter. It saddens me that some would fight so hard for something that is actually a "no-brainer" for some unknown reason that actually does not even make sense. It is almost like we need a "WikiProject oversite" committee.

An historic lighthouse, that is no longer a USCG light, no longer under USCG authority, and is just an historic structure or lighthouse (light station) would have been good examples of articles not to include in renaming. I have found that, according to what I see as consensus, a common name is preferred over an historic name and also over an official name in most cases. In almost "all" (literally) forms of media except the USCG listing and a couple of others (not counting the Wikipedia listing) the name is Sabine Pass Lighthouse. Google search here. National Geographic US Gulf Coast geotourism map here

A Google books search here returns:

• Books by authors
• Books by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey
• Books by the US Hydrographics Office
• Local Newspaper: "The News" (Port Arthur, Tx.); 1)-"Sabine Pass lighthouse lovers get their tasty read"; about The American Lighthouse Cookbook featuring the Sabine Pass Lighthouse - (October 19, 2009), 2)- "Sabine Pass Lighthouse still garners attention", about the nonprofit group Cameron Preservation Alliance-Sabine Pass Lighthouse Inc. (February 14, 2009), 3)- "Two men rescued from Sabine Pass lighthouse" (September 5, 2008) and, 4)- "Stamp to feature Sabine Pass Lighthouse, others" (December 30, 2008), 5)- "Sabine Pass group seeks members" (February 8, 2009).
• Local TV: KPLC channel 7, here, here, and here, and here These are just a drop as there are a many more.

The article references uses Sabine Pass Lighthouse and the USCG even uses lighthouse and light station (different than a "light" being a particular type) here. There are even more that I found during the 1st move request. None of that matters at this point because logic, proof, and common sense is actually trumped by a project naming.

At some point though enough editors will decide that 20 editors can not override the view, opinions, and consensus of multiple hundreds and run off editors by deciding to use a name that was considered USCG "official" for 13 years (1939 to 1952), and never the more common, as justification for naming and renaming articles across an entire enclycopedia. Even the General Service Administration, that disposed of the property in 1985, used "lighthouse". EVEN if you include their time in control with the USCG (which would be 1939 to 1985) this would still be an historical naming of 46 years out of 157 years in existence. I will submit that if all renamed lighthouses were to be reviewed (I quit editing them but keep checking) there would be a referenced common name to the majority. Thank you for your time and I will mark this for when the time is right if it is not the present. Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: "At some point though enough editors will decide that 20 editors can not override the view, opinions, and consensus of multiple hundreds and run off editors by deciding to use a name that was considered ... "official" ... and never the more common, as justification for naming and renaming articles across an entire enclycopedia." – Yep. It's a classic case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS failure to abide by WP:COMMONNAME, and more generally of the logical problems outlined at WP:Specialist style fallacy. See WP:BIRDCON for how that kind of "use our special style or else" factionalism plays out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the first change:

"Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus must be reached before any change is made."

Needs explaining before it is is implemented and seems to me to be instruction creep.

The second change the addition of:

"For example, either airplane or aeroplane would be an acceptable title, but powered fixed-wing aircraft would not."

ought not to be added while we have names like "Rail transport" instead of "Railway" or "Railroad". This is particularly true as there was no consensus for the move of content from "Fixed-wing aircraft" to airplane (see Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft/Archive 2#Clarification of article scope or requested move. It also seems to be a case of your (Red Slash), first part of the edit being breached in spirit if not literally (as it was a cut and split move of content not a literal move). -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It was Red Slash who was bold and changed airplane from a redirect into an article in March 2013 ignoring the January 2012 lack of consensus for a move and without gaining a new consensus on the talk page before making the change. It begs the obvious question Red Slash why choose airplane and not aeroplane for the change with the edit comment "Branched off from fixed-wing aircraft"? -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... It seems our "Fixed wing aircraft" example is now out of date (sad... it had been a stable compromise and thus a good example for a long time).

I think the point that the example was trying to make is still valid (sometimes, when there isn't one clearly dominant COMMONNAME ... or when national varieties compete, it actually is best to look for a third, less frequently used, but reasonably common option). So... we should probably keep the point, but try to find a new example. Blueboar (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar the wording Red Slash recently introduced was quite the opposite. Isn't rail transport a suitable example for the older idea? -- PBS (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PBS's reversion: this was certainly not a "tiny change". It's also a pity that Red Slash was earlier allowed to go against both consensus and the proper procedure for making moves. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the first change is absolutely correct. There are circumstances under which it is best to be bold, but making controversial title changes is not one of them. bd2412 T 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the first change clarifies very nicely why WP:TITLECHANGES even exists--to stop moves like Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning being summarily undertaken by a well-meaning administrator without having forged a consensus through discussion. It's a tiny change.

The second? Eh, take it or leave it. It should be noted that at no point has any article been located at powered fixed-wing aircraft, and I did not move any article in my formation of the article airplane, which I wrote in my native variety of my language, drawing heavily from the article on fixed-wing aircraft that still exists at that title. I didn't move anything. Red Slash 00:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, PBS, I may have been mistaken about current practice. Rail transport, however, is a distinctly British title. Americans would usually call it "transportation". Red Slash 00:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, a mass request of a large number of moves, consisting of the commingling of about 7 different (even contradictory) types of renaming proposal, which raise various WP:AT issues, especially with regard to WP:NATURAL, and to a lesser extent WP:COMMON, plus some WP:MOS questions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP:CRITERIA say a lot about what makes a good title; they are not "rules" with "exceptions". But when I tried to explain better, avoiding the rejected "unnecessary disambiguation" theory of B2C, JHunterJ reverted me here. Maybe someone else can find a better way to explain how consistency and precision live together in various titling guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct... This is why we call the WP:CRITERIA "goals" in the policy and not "rules".

What people often have difficulty understanding is that this policy is all about flexibility. Unlike most of our policies, this one is all about intentionally NOT setting firm and fast "rules". In fact, I would say there are only two real "rules" in the entire policy: 1) titles must be unique. 2) titles are ultimately chosen by consensus.

OH... and just for the record... sometimes consistency and precision don't live together. Sometimes they conflict... and as the policy says, sometimes we must choose between them. What a lot of people don't understand is that we intentionally don't say how to choose between them, nor which should take precedence when they do conflict. That's because the answer to the question "which is more important, consistency or precision?" will be different from one article to the next. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, compilations of works are named for the years they cover, e.g. 1962–1966 by The Beatles or 1979–1983 by Bauhaus, and it is not readily apparent that such titles are proper names. After lengthy discussion with a fellow editor helped me to crystallize my own thoughts on this, I’d like to pose this question to the community at large:

Should the titles of our articles about such compilations include a bit of disambiguation by default, such as the creator’s name or the type of work? For instance, if the short stories that a John Smith wrote between 1947 and 1953 were collected and published under the title 1947–1953, should our article about that book instead be titled “1947–1953 (book)” or “John Smith 1947–1953”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Composition titles, especially when commercial products (albums, books, movies, games), are often deliberately ambiguous with something catchy. This is a standard marketing/promotion technique. In general, allowing these things to occupy undisambiguated titles rewards this tactic, allows mis-recognition by unsuspecting readers, and sets a trend that Wikipedia titles are not useful. I would say that every number from 0 to 2100 can be reasonably expected to refer to the year, and that for any of these numbers, yyyy-yyyy can reasonably be expect to refer to an historical period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  I would say 1900 or possibly 1800 to 2100, and quite disagree that 0–999 would be expected to refer to years, but otherwise I’m in full agreement. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps you have taken little interest in subjects such as Æthelred of Mercia? Note that numbers from 1 upwards are articles about the year (as according to the Julian or Gregorian calendar). I don't know about how that came to be, but is fits very well with the notion that an encyclopedia is a historiographical work, and even it is was an arbitrary decision, it is an established decision, and for the benefits of consistency, it is advantageous to assume that these numbers refer to years if undisambiguated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Good point. Never mind my disagreement on that then. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yes, disambiguation of number ranges and year ranges when they mean something else like a work title, per the "precision" criterion at WP:AT: "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." (though the precision criterion was more precise before it was mangled thus). Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  "though the p..." snigger. -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To be future-proof, I would suggest "1947–1953 (John Smith book)" in analogy with "1962–1966 (Beatles album)" which is how we refer to other albums whose names are ambiguous - note that we sometimes include and sometimes omit "The": Revolver (Beatles album) but Absolutely Live (The Doors album) (emphasis mine). (I haven't investigated whether this is a case of "use common sense" or of ils ne savent pas ce qu'ils font.) Samsara (FA • FP) 04:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Shouldn't a question about whether to disambiguate be at WT:D rather than WT:AT?

  In any case, the process of disambiguation - a term specific to WP - is for the purpose of coming up with an alternative title when the first choice for a given article is used by another article. This isn't just my personal view. This is what WP:D said back in 2003, before I started editing here:

  • 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. [1].
  And this is not something that has changed. The disambiguation section here at WP:AT says something similar today:
  • "It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles.".
  Album compilations named by the date ranges that they encompass, when we have no other article to which that date range refers, have no conflict that needs to be resolved; their natural titles - the date-range itself - is available and perfect for the title of the article. These date ranges have no other meanings that have been "already used for other articles". Such a title meets WP:PRECISION because the title - the name of the album - is precise enough to define the topic scope of the article, just like the name of any other album "is precise enough to define the topic scope of the article" of that album. There is no policy basis to "include a bit of disambiguation by default" on such titles, and there is no good user benefit reason to do so either.

  Finally, 1983-1991 is not causing anyone any problems, nor will any other compilation album article title that simply reflects the name of the album, like this one does. --В²C ☎ 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  “Disambiguation” is not a term unique to Wikipedia (check any given dictionary). You’re thinking of the sense of disambiguation between conflicting titles of distinct Wikipedia articles, and that is indeed handled at WP:D, but that’s not what we’re discussing here; this is why I brought it up as a matter of titling policy rather than a matter of disambiguation between existing articles. It’s a question of precision. What I’m asking is whether those titles are “precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article” (a key word being “unambiguously”), or ambiguous with the year ranges they appear to be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  I checked the Google dictionary for "disambiguation". "No definition found". --В²C ☎ 05:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  I’m not sure what the “Google dictionary” is (a Google define: query returns a definition), but according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, disambiguation is the noun form of the verb disambiguate. Here, I’ll link the Wiktionary entries: wikt:disambiguation, wikt:disambiguate. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  And why are you focusing exclusively on albums here? Short story collections, poetry collections, anything that could be collected into a single publishable work in any medium, this applies equally to all of them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. By all means do disambiguate any ranges which are ambiguous with a title of another article, but to do disambiguate all of them preemptively makes very little sense, nor is such an approach supported by existing policies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 8, 2014; 20:29 (UTC)

  Hence I’m asking to change this policy to support that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  I understand that, but it is my opinion that such a change is neither necessary nor prudent nor wise. And gathering opinions from various editors is ultimately what this proposal/question is all about, right? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2014; 04:20 (UTC)

  Of course, and I thank you for your quite reasonable input even though I don’t personally agree with it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. In my opinion, disambiguation in Wikipedia should be for resolving the problem of what to do when the topic is not the primary use of the "name" (or other logical title), even if other uses do not have Wikipedia articles. The principle of least surprise should apply to article titles, as well as to article content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The hard part of the principle of least surprise is determining which title actually will cause the least amount of surprise, or surprise the fewest number of people. Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If policy were to encourage RM participants to consider minimising surprise, then that would be a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. If this previous discussion is anything to go by, all the dates ranges were either merged or renamed. Not having guidelines and practice match doesn't make much sense. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: As the proposer, I should mention that (if there’s consensus for it) I’ll be leaving the implementation to other editors who are better at writing policy. I feel strongly that there should be a section of policy about this, but I couldn’t say exactly where or with what wording. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This truly is a solution in search of a problem. WP does not do "date-range qua date-range" titles. E.g., 1814–1823, 1923–1941, 1988–1991, 1892–1901, 1961–1965, 2002–2008. The only exceptions are the decade articles, which have redirects like 1970–1979; and very rare redirects to articles which are highly associated with a date range, like 1914-1918. Otherwise, there just are no encyclopedic topics that are known by their date ranges.

  And that's the crux - WP deals in encyclopedic topics. WP is WP:NOT a bunch of things, including a dictionary, an atlas, a telephone directory, or a collection of timelines. Which is where a lot of people get led astray on this issue. They ask the person on the street: "What is "1979–1983"?" The person on the street answers: "A date range."

  But consider the analogy to the dictionary. Ask the person on the street: "What does "never" mean?" The person on the street will say: "At no time," or similar. But that is a simple dictdef, which is why we have no article on the word never, but instead a dab page - of encyclopedic topics actually called "Never." The same is true for any number of words qua words - we get dab pages or something completely different: you can look here, there, and everywhere, and find similar results. And if there is no encyclopedic topic for a common word, do we redlink it? Quite.

  The point? Most things that look like date ranges are not actually encyclopedic topics, will not be used to search for encyclopedic topics, and therefore do not exist as WP articles or redirects. There's no need to disambiguate against something that doesn't exist. Dohn joe (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are exceptions. There are articles associated with date ranges. All year-like numbers are articles on years. Readers will reasonably expect a date range title to return an article on the date range, or something prominantly associated with the date range. An unknown date range title creates intrigue of an important date-range specific international event. If the article returned is an obscure commercial product with a deceptive title, then the reader has been deceived.

Titles are not for searching. Search engines are for searching, and they use far more than titles. Disambiguating the ambiguous is a good idea. Ambiguous titles do not serve the readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The common words you use as examples properly link to DAB pages, rather than an article on some obscure subject that goes by that name. So you have not at all addressed the point made by User:Arthur Rubin that we should not have undisambiguated article titles that are not the primary use, which is the whole idea behind this proposal. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of those was to show that even though "never," "here," "there," and "everywhere" are extremely common words, the dab pages at those words have nothing to do with the by far most common way that they are used. And when there is no encyclopedic usage, the article/redirect does not exist, as in quite or become. And yes, if there is a single encyclopedic usage of a common word, it goes to a specific article: Until, Away, .... Dohn joe (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the words “until” and “away” aren’t really concepts that you could write an article (even a rejected one) about, they don’t really set any words-as-words expectations, so I see no conflict there (what about nouns?). But you absolutely could write an article about events that took place between 1979 and 1983, so I’d still say that title conflicts with its primary use, the meaning that one would reasonably expect from an encyclopedia article with that title. For example, we have no article at Elderly, so it redirects to Old age. If a book, movie, album, etc. came out with the name Elderly, that title would technically be available—but I would still expect this redirect to remain because that’s the primary use expected of an encyclopedia. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Common English words, Until, Away, Big, should not be allowed as article titles. They are inherently ambiguous. They do not precisely identify their topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  Is there any policy or guidance that expressly says so? Because there should be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  Common English words, Until, Away, Big, should redirect to the actual article that best encompasses the abstraction that represents their primary topic, if one exists. I'm not sure what this would be for Until and Away, but for Big it would probably be Size, which should be an article on that general topic. bd2412 T 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  Again, is there any policy or guidance on this? If not, someone really ought to get on that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note... Currently, "Big" is fine... since it is used as the title of a disambiguation page and not as the title of an article. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support; while I understand the position of B2C, Ezhiki or Dohn joe, this is mostly a style debate, which should result in one recommendation or another. I'm generally advocating more "preemptive" disambiguation in article titles, in order to stress WP:PRECISION possibly on the expense of WP:CONCISEness. More descriptive titles also facilitate searching and auto-completion: for "inherently ambiguous" titles like yyyy–yyyy it is practically impossible for the reader to even get a general idea what the article is about until they open it start reading it. Of course, it is far from possible for any given title, but at least some conformance to the principle of least astonishment should be honored. No such user (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support in the interests of titles communicating something about the subject of the article. Omnedon (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle as the proposal is not specific enough. You asked a question, which I've answered, but now people are supporting without it being clear what they are supporting. I think I must therefore oppose or we risk creating a situation that is worse than before. Please make a specific proposal in favour of EITHER John Smith 1947-1953 (which I would oppose) OR 1947-1953 (book) which I would support. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  I think that decision would be on a case-by-case basis. John Smith 1947–1953 if WP:NATURAL is applicable, or 1947–1953 (book) if not, for instance. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  Just to clarify - do you support 1947-1953 (book) only if there is another topic called 1947-1953, or do you support it even if there is no other topic with that title? Dohn joe (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  @Dohn joe: Sorry for failing to notice this question for so long. In my estimation, the years between 1947 and 1953 are the primary topic of “1947–1953”. So I guess the answer to your question is… yes. (See elsewhere throughout this discussion for more on whether that should be relevant.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Precision is almost always more important that conciseness, within common sense limits.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC) PS: Samsara's question/objection is adequately addressed, in my view, by 174.141.182.82's response to Dohn joe's response to Samsara, immediatley above, that specific formatting is a case-by-case matter determined by WP:NATURAL and other criteria. The proposal here is not to change the criteria, but to disambiguate date range titles because they are naturally ambiguous and everyone by WP:AT/MOS:NUM experts will expect such an article title to be about the real-world date range, not about a work titled for that date range. Dohn joe's own objection is again addressed adequately by the proponent in a comment below: 'it’s really not “preemptive disambiguation”; such a title is already ambiguous by its very nature'.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there isn't a primary topic that would take the same name, disambiguation is inappropriate. To quote WP:Disambiguation, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia" (my emphasis). These article titles aren't printed out somewhere, where someone is given no context, but somehow has to figure out what the date range refers to. They are used as links within other articles, and typed in to the search bar by people looking for particular content. So unless you have an actual topic that would have an article or redirect for that date range (I'm thinking something like 1939-1945 would maybe, maybe be a plausible redirect to World War II), there is no user context for the disambiguation to become necessary. Note that this would mean that albums with names like "1960-1969" would be disambiguated, as the date range would be a plausible redirect to a well known and studied cultural era, i.e. the 1960s. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of us oppose that interpretation of WP:Disambiguation, particularly when it leads to titles that are too short and ambiguous to be precise enough to point out the topic. The precision criterion suggests that being precise enough to point out the topic is a good thing: The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing inherent about "short" titles that makes something fundamentally ambiguous: ambiguity comes when there's a completely separate topic that would be referred to by the same name, no matter the length. "The one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people-eater" was both a song and an old purple car my aunt and uncle used to own; length ≠ unambiguous. What this proposal is implying is that any article title which does not invoke its subject domain, whether there is another article topic that can be named the same or not, should be disambiguated, but the implications of that standard are absolute chaos - disambiguation would be the default, not the exception for when there is ambiguity. Staying within album titles, and to take a single artist, Bridge over Troubled Water would need to be disambiguated because there is nothing inherent in the title that says it's an album and not an infrastructure project; Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme needs disambiguation because it could be a spice mixture; Wednesday Morning, 3 AM could be taken for a certain time of the week; Sounds of Silence would be disambiguated against a possible Zen kōan or an auditory effect; and Bookends happens to be a primary topic, but it's the one Simon and Garfunkel album that is legitimately a target for disambiguation right now (a hatnote points to the library device). In the end, this argument for disambiguation is actually an argument about overturning long-standing policy and understanding of how disambiguation works and what it is for, and trying to wiggle it in under something that superficially might be confusing because we don't normally put numbers in the same domain as music is neither wise nor is this venue or its visibility sufficient to take on such a fundamental change to Wikipedia policy. Since having every article that doesn't explicitly state its subject domain within the title is a pretty unambiguously bad standard to have, it's a precedent you shouldn't make unless there are critical consequences to not doing so. This doesn't even come close. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: What this proposal is implying is that any article title which does not invoke its subject domain, whether there is another article topic that can be named the same or not, should be disambiguated. Thank you ... I have been trying to figure out what it is about this proposal that bothers me, and your comment hit the nail on the head. Yeah... we are not talking about titles that need disambiguation here... we are talking about titles that don't "invoke their subject domain clearly".

We tend to think of parenthetical notations in titles as being "disambiguation"... but they have a second use... "clarification". The thing is, determining whether there is a need for clarification in a title is a matter of consensus, and not something that has been addressed in this policy. Sometimes the consensus will be that adding a parenthetical clarification of the title will be a benefit to the readers... and sometimes the consensus will be that it won't be a benefit. In other words... the need for clarification may be a valid concern, but it is one that has to be hashed out on an article by article basis. We can't look to policy about this, because there is no WP:CLARITY... no policy or guidance on how best to clarify a title that might (or might not) need clarification... the only way to deal with it is the messy process of consensus building. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you’re right about what’s being proposed, though I still believe it would be a Good Thing. But I guess a side question that I’m asking here is… should there be a WP:CLARITY? (Edit: There is… but you get my point.) And to Vanisaac: Wikipedia does not only exist as this website, and one of the project’s goals is for a traditional paper encyclopedia to be included among the countless forms it may take. We can’t assume anything about context. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as the very first item on the policy page telling us what Wikipedia is not is that WP:Wikipedia is not paper, yet another argument for adding unnecessary disambiguation seems to be in direct contradiction with the basic philosophy of how this site works. But even if we were to take that as a real concern, I think the two things I would do before anything else, in compiling a paper version of Wikipedia, would be to 1) find a heuristic for substituting wikilinks, eg The Wars of the Roses → The Wars of the Roses (English dynastic conflict, 1455–1487) and 2) I would organize things by category, probably by establishing equivalence between Wikipedia categories and LCC call letters. But in the end, disambiguation for a print edition still has no limiting concept, inevitably implying the madness of disambiguating every article. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, that bit of the policy concerns size and breadth limitations, and nothing else… and I’m not proposing here that we disambiguate whenever possible; just that we clarify ambiguously titled works, and that works named for year ranges are ambiguously titled works. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the policy says, what I am doing is applying the principle upon which it is based. Wikipedia is not constrained by the pragmatic concerns of paper encyclopedias, and it is fallacious to argue for something because that's how it would be done in a paper encyclopedia. The fundamental problem is that your conception of an "ambiguously titled work" is completely at odds with all current practice on Wikipedia, and defines the ambiguity of a title in such a way that nearly every article would need to be disambiguated. As far as I can tell, your proposed principle for disambiguation is that an article title must not only name the article subject, but also has to evoke the subject domain in some way. It removes any context or cultural knowledge whatsoever, and demands that the article title without that context could not possibly be considered for any other subject. The Great Awakening would have to be disambiguated as a religious movement, Crito would have to be identified as a philosophical dialogue, and the Trail of Tears as a native genocide; the implications of your standard of what is an "ambiguous title" is absolute madness. VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said we should do something under the assumption that it would be on paper. I said we shouldn’t do something under the assumption that it would be on this website, in response to your arguments implying that Wikipedia articles are never seen outside of this website.

True, one could admittedly make the argument that the titles you list are not entirely unambiguous. But I don’t think one could argue that any of your suggested alternatives are the primary topic for the respective title, and never have I suggested ignoring that fact. However, the primary topic for a range of years (where WP:DIFFCAPS can’t possibly apply) is arguably that range of years. It’s more akin to your Bookends example than anything else, or any other subject that’s named for a common noun (which none of your other examples are). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just it. Without an event, or cultural era, or something that took place in that time period and would be identified by that range of years, the album is not only the primary topic, it is the only topic. VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The range of years itself is a topic that would more reasonably be expected under such a title in an encyclopedia, since that’s what it unambiguously is, so I’d argue that it’s misleading to use it for anything else. What I’m advocating here is that such titles follow the principle of least astonishment (article, project essay). To the best of my knowledge, there are no other nouns or noun phrases used to title articles that are not about what those nouns or noun phrases primarily represent—i.e. Bodybuilding is about what bodybuilders do, Fermat's little theorem is about a theorem by Fermat, etc.. These year range titles are an exception. I say they shouldn’t be. That’s all. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bridge over Troubled Water is neither about bridges nor waterways in unfortunate circumstances; To Kill a Mockingbird is not an article about ornithocide; Mt. Gox is not an article about a geographic feature; Barenaked Ladies is not an article about female naturism; et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And the capitalization makes it clear that, for instance, To Kill a Mockingbird is about something by that name (not to mention the fact that we never title our articles with infinitive phrases). Does a bridge by that name exist? Does a mountain by that name exist? The span of time between one calendar year and another calendar year is a thing that exists. Please use better fitting examples, or respond to the points I have made. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Capitalisations distinguish "Bridge over Troubled Water", "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Barenaked Ladies" as composition titles, and not descriptive titles. "1979-1983" carries not hint that it is a composition title, and is easily read as a descriptive title.

Mt. Gox could use more clarity. It is poorly recognizable, and is easily mis-recognized as a geographical feature. It would be better titled as Mt. Gox, bitcoin exchange, noting that reliable sources commenting on it feel the need to clarify it that way in its first mention. It fits into the large group of commercial things trying to own short catchy names. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

All capitalisation tells you is that it's a proper name of some sort. And artists and authors have been known to purposefully not capitalise, as well, leading to MOS issues with forcing capitalisation. But even if capitalisation were a perfectly applied metric, it neither limits the possible domain, nor does it distinguish between items inside and outside of literal interpretations, e.g. Bridge over Troubled Water vs Bridge of Sighs. VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether proper name or composition title, the capitalisation tells you that it is not a descriptive title. This means that for titles using title case, there is no strong reason to disambiguate from the topic implied by the reading of a descriptive title. This is not the case for "1979-1983".

Going back to your !vote of 01:50, 7 September: Disambiguation is obviously required when technically necessary, but to limit disambiguation to technical necessity means to ignore the needs readers to read a title for the traditional, expected, purpose of a title, which is to identify the topic covered. Article titles are printed out somewhere, Wikipedia articles are able to printed, and excepts of multiple articles have content pages, and titles populate the content pages, and these are suitable for printing. You appear to be working under the apprehension that periods of time are only of interest if they are well known and studied, and this is contrary to the aim of the project to be comprehensive. Only a couple of authors need be published writing about the period 1979-1983 and voilà, "1979-1983" is a viable article topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I’m afraid I must admit that I’m not even sure what you’re arguing at this point, Van. Are you criticizing my position for not taking it to unreasonable extremes and applying it to titles that already unambiguously identify their subjects? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize we've gotten quite far away from the main point, but if you don't understand that bad precedents get set by these edge cases, that a policy requiring disambiguation when there is not another article topic with which it would be confused implies that there is a justification for disambiguating in almost any circumstance, then you probably shouldn't be making large forays into site policy like this. The problem is that there just isn't a usage scenario in which unnecessary disambiguation provides a benefit even remotely justifying the wikilawyering that would result. Even the most anachronistic presentation - a paper printout - has the article content right there for you to see that it's about a compilation album and not an abstract general span of time. The fact is, you have to go out of your way to purposefully remove all context and contributing information from the article title for this ever to relieve anything more than a moment's transitory confusion. Bad precedent, capricious reversal of basic site architecture, and no realistic usefulness to any user or editor is more than enough to oppose this idea categorically. That's really all I have to say on the matter. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand no such thing. I see no slippery slope in requiring disambiguation when the obvious primary use (the date range) does not have a Wikipedia article, whether or not it should have a Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Could someone move this thread down to the next section? Feels way too long for where it is. Anyway, “a policy requiring disambiguation when there is not another article topic with which it would be confused” is not what is being proposed here, but rather, a policy requiring disambiguation when there is a primary topic with which it would be confused, which in my opinion is far from “unnecessary.” This is rather more limited than the open-ended policy you seem to have read into it. And sure, the same logic could potentially be applied to our article about The Bridge on the River Kwai if the Khwae Yai River had a bridge known by that name—and that would be an argument worth considering. To further counter your slippery-slope argument, the example I just used is the only working example other than year ranges that the group of us have been able to come up with; all of the other examples in this thread have been unambiguous or the primary topic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Year ranges don't naturally disambiguate. Epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (Corrected. Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

  What does that mean? Please explain. Dohn joe (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  "What does that mean? Please explain"? Trollers' bait. It is quite clear what he means. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm sorry - maybe I'm being dense, but I really do not understand what the point of "Year ranges don't naturally disambiguate." I simply asked the poster to explain. And if you wouldn't mind striking the bit about calling me a troll, I'd appreciate that as well. Dohn joe (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  Withdrawn with apologies. I now realise that I have little idea what Epicgenius means. I had thought he obviously meant "Year ranges [such as "1979-1983"] don't disambiguate [topics such as the topic of the five years 1979-1983 from the topic of a commercial product titled 1979-1983]". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Dohn joe: I struck what I didn't mean. Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  If I understand Epicgenius correctly: Year ranges are naturally ambiguous, and should never be used as titles when unambiguous titles are desired. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  @174.141.182.82: I was wrong. Year ranges do naturally disambiguate, and that's what I meant to say in the first place. My apologies. Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  That's no more clear. Do you mean that they naturally require disambiguation, and that's why you said "support"? Or maybe you didn't understand the question, or have some view that we can't discern from your words? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  Argh! I am one confusing guy.

  I mean that pages like 1979–1983 do not need moving to 1979–1983 (album) because they already distinguish themselves naturally; the year range itself is not notable, but the album is, so the article can stay at the title "1979–1983". Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Then I think you meant to oppose, since I proposed that we should do that because albums (especially non-notable ones, or ones from obscure bands) are not the primary topic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Question for opposers: What, if anything, is a drawback to making ambiguous proper names slightly more concisely descriptive? What's the downside to a title like Away (play) as compared to Away? There are objecting editors here, but unless I missed something, they've all objected as a matter of principle where a number of supporting editors have pointed out how it benefits the user. How can a concise bit of extra precision, a mention of the creator or the format of the work or whatever, hinder the user? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is, any waste of editor time and resources hinders the user, because those resources could have been spent in improving the encyclopedia. The point that the !supporters are missing, is that this kind of preemptive disambiguation, doesn't actually benefit the reader. In the real world, essentially nobody is confused by a date-range title going to a compilation album. The system works fine as is. It's a simple idea: if there are two or more encyclopedic topics with the same name, disambiguate. If not, there is no need. If we go around changing thousands of articles for no benefit, then we've wasted our time, and the user suffers. That's the downside - that's the hindrance.

I realize, by the way, that I lost most of the !supporters about three sentences back. I know that you all believe that the extra bits help the user. I disagree (and have explained at length elsewhere why). That irreconcilable difference in starting points makes it impossible to answer your question as posed - I disagree with the premise. Hope that helps explain a bit. Dohn joe (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Counterpoint: I am confused by a date-range title going to a compilation album, or any similarly ambiguous title (including ones that would seem to have no business being in an encyclopedia) going to something that seems completely unrelated. I sincerely doubt that I’m unique among Wikipedia users, and the avoidance of that confusion is the benefit of choosing titles more carefully. But I appreciate your efforts to explain your perspective. I’d hate to resign to simply agree to disagree, but if you think the differences are that fundamental… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, one more try at reconciliation... :) I really don't think you or anyone else would ever be confused in real life. That's the thing. Say we have a book, 1947-1953 by John Smith. Someone who knows the title of the book will type "1947-1953" into the search box, see 1947-1953 pop up, and go merrily to their article. But here's the key to all this: no one else will search for "1947-1953", because it's not an encyclopedic topic. No one will ever come across 1947-1953 and not know immediately that it is the title of a book. They will see it in Google results, or they will see it as a link from another WP article, surrounded by context. The only people who see context-less titles disembodied from their content are denizens of WP:AT and WP:RM - i.e., us.

If you still disagree, please - show me how you or anyone could reasonably be confused by this title - when you are actually using WP, not just in the abstract. Dohn joe (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So… our article titles are only useful as search keywords? I’m sorry if I misunderstand, but you seem to be implying that. And I respectfully disagree. Also, yes, I continue to be confused by the fact that 1983–1991 is about a release of goth music. But since you asked for a use case: If a friend sent me a link to 1947–1953, I would be confused once I read past the title, because that title would lead me to expect the article to be historical in nature. That wouldn’t be the case with John Smith 1947–1953 (obviously a work title) or 1947–1953 (book) (ditto). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You must have awfully cryptic friends, to only send links to bare titles with no explanation. "Psst, hey, friend: 1947-1953!" I don't understand the search keyword thing you're imputing to me, so I don't know how to respond to that. Dohn joe (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant off Wikipedia, so it would be a pasted URL (and yes, that does happen). And about search keywords, I meant that you seem to think the primary purpose of article titles was as things to be typed into the search box; I don’t know how accepted this is as true, but I don’t agree. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that having a redirect solves that problem. I didn't understand the proposal as saying there shouldn't be a redirect. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, à la 1979–1983 (natural DAB, but same point), a redirect to “… (album/movie/book/whatever)” makes sense. An album/movie/book/whatever at an ambiguous title does not, in my opinion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Many folks in this thread have elsewhere argued strongly to remove date ranges as redirects, actually. Dohn joe (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You'll note that I opposed the motion because I felt it wasn't sufficiently clear. It might be helpful to know what venue "elsewhere" refers to, if it isn't suppressed because of some previous incident. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Elsewhere includes here, as well as at the various discussions listed at the top of that discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it’s really not “preemptive disambiguation”; such a title is already ambiguous by its very nature. It’s only “preemptive” if you mean it in the Wikipedia jargon sense of disambiguating between articles rather than the actual meaning of the word. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I focused on ambiguity between encyclopedic uses, mainly because this is an encyclopedia.... :) Dohn joe (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe had the only opposing argument that I thought worth thinking about above. That is until I realised he said, But here's the key to all this: no one else will search for "1947-1953", because it's not an encyclopedic topic. But it is, there's Cold War (1947–53) and History of the United States National Security Council 1947–53. As for his reference to previous discussions, as I have already noted, the actual articles either had additional ambiguation added, or were considered non-notable and merged. So I repeat, ongoing consensus is in favour of this proposal. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Richhoncho - can we start with the potential common ground - what was the argument of mine that you felt was worth considering? Dohn joe (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Richhoncho, "1947-1953" is at best a partial title match for Cold War (1947–53) and History of the United States National Security Council 1947–53 - it's not a competing use of that title. The way we decide whether anyone is like to search for a topic with a given term is by looking to see if reliable sources refer to that topic with that term. And in this cases there are no examples of reliable sources that refer to either of these topics as "1947-1953". --В²C ☎ 22:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

В²C. As you missed the irony I will have to spell it out. What the opposers are arguing is that nobody searches for something that is not there. Go tell that to people searching for yeti, bigfoot, gold at the end of the rainbow et al. Something is there providing you can find it. Let's make it easier to find and stop all this absurdity.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for deciding whether something is ambiguous are not the same as the criteria for the contents of a DAB page. Those are not partial title matches; they’re historical topics that coincide with the example date range. He was illustrating that date ranges are ambiguous, and not just in the jargon sense of the word. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

When you say "not just in the jargon sense", the "not just" implies "date ranges are ambiguous" in (at least) the (WP) jargon sense. But that's not true. The date ranges are not ambiguous in the WP jargon sense, because we have no topics (other than the albums) covered on WP that are referred to as those date-ranges in reliable sources. Whether they are ambiguous in the dictionary sense (not the WP jargon sense) is irrelevant on WP. --В²C ☎ 17:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant I was referring not to the WP jargon sense. And no, it is not irrelevant, per WP:NC. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My opposing argument is based on the premise that both titles are reasonable and neither benefits the user more than the other to any significant degree. If you don't accept that premise, then we can talk about that separately. So the opposing argument is not about user benefit because it dismisses the user benefit argument as non-applicable at the outset. Instead, it is based on the need for a consistent, predictable and stable method for making title decisions so editors don't have to debate and re-debate titles, but can work on article content. So, yeah, principle is at stake here, but there are practical implications associated with how well these principles are followed. The more title decision-making is left to the subjective opinions of those who happen to participate in these discussion, the less definitive and less stable our titles becomes. And the way you achieve title stability is buy adopting clear and unambiguous rules on how to decide titles, whenever it is reasonable to do so. --В²C ☎ 22:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fairer to say that you consider editorial benefit to be a higher priority here than reader benefit. Your proposal of using as little disambiguatory language as possible would admittedly achieve that end—assuming it would not be a subject of constant debate. However, my proposal of using a little bit of precision would achieve both ends. You would have us name the article about the book 1947–1953 and have done with it. I would have us use WP:NATURALDIS or name it 1947–1953 (book) and have done with it. Our approaches are equally predictable, consistent, and stable, assuming universal editorial support for each (which can never be expected anyway). So I’m not seeing any benefit to yours over mine. If your measure of success is whether everyone agrees on something, it doesn’t matter what the thing they agree on is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"I think it would be fairer to say that you consider editorial benefit to be a higher priority here than reader benefit." No, I consider something of considerable editorial benefit, like title stability, to be a higher priority than something of marginal reader benefit (a more descriptive title), especially when the editorial benefit is savings in time which can be converted to improving articles which is a considerable reader benefit. — Born2cycle — continues after insertion below

Yes, this is what I meant by “a higher priority here”. I intended no judgement, just pointing out that we were bringing different priorities to this debate. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is to follow clear and consistent general titling principles (like disambiguate only when necessary to resolve conflicts with other uses on WP) consistently across all titles, as much as is reasonable, for the ultimate goal of title stability. Your proposal affects only these titles immediately, but also dismisses the principles that get us more title stability... leading to more title instability. There is nothing predictable, consistent, or stable about using WP:NATURALDIS in a case where disambiguation is not necessary. If we decide to do that here, how do we decide whether to use it in the myriads of other cases where disambiguation is not necessary? And no matter what those participating in some case decide, what's to keep another group of participants from deciding otherwise next time? If we don't follow clear and simple principles to decide how to title articles, then those decisions are ultimately up to the whims of those who happen to be participating, and are therefore subject to change, back and forth, endlessly. That's not stability. That's the opposite. --В²C ☎ 19:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I still fail to see how your preference, to use extra precision only when the name is used by other articles, offers any more stability than mine, to always use extra precision when the name is a date range. You say stability comes from clear and simple principles; I am suggesting clear and simple principles. (Whether we should always use extra precision when the name is a common word is another question worth considering, but not what I’m proposing here [though I would support such a proposal].) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Using extra precision only when when the name is used by other articles offers more stability than always use extra precision when the name is a date range because the latter introduces an exception to the former, based on an underlying principle that can, arguably, be used to justify more and more exceptions. The principle underlying the latter is to use extra precision whenever the name is recognizable as a reference to something that not only does not have a use on WP, but may not even have an actual use outside of WP. That may not be your intent, but once we have justified disambiguating the date ranges, anyone can reasonably point at any of them as an example to follow for the more general cases. And in each such situation that view will be subject to debate. Further, once we have more and more of these moved, now we have a growing number of examples of titles that are more descriptive due to the unnecessary disambiguation, and these can be used to justify unnecessary disambiguation to improve "recognizability" on the title of any article with a topic that is otherwise not broadly recognized to the public in general. In other words, the vast majority of our titles. You may believe you're drawing a clear line by limiting the scope of the proposal to broadly recognized titles with date ranges, but the unintended consequences, manifested in widespread title instability, will be enormous. --В²C ☎ 16:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In my book, disambiguation to better satisfy precision and recognizability is not unnecessary. And if we’re stable with so many vague titles, maybe that stability is a bad thing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the discussion with semantic banter. I purposefully linked to WP:UNDAB to be clear about how I was using "unnecessary". You may believe adding precision to the title is "necessary" for some other reasons, but it's clearly not necessary to distinguish it other uses on WP if there are no other uses on WP.

Nobody has identified a single significant problem with "vague" titles. If you don't understand and appreciate the problem of title instability, that explains everything. We currently seem to be getting 2 to 4 dozen new proposals per day at WP:RM. Apparently that's manageable, though it seems much higher than it needs to be, especially considering almost all of them don't affect user experience one iota one way or the other. But how many per day do you think would be a problem? I presume you agree 1,000 would be far too many. What about 500? 200? 100? What's tolerable? What's necessary? What's not? --В²C ☎ 19:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

UNDAB appears to be written almost entirely by you (I humbly suggest you avoid citing it yourself). I’m afraid I am not interested in your personal definition of unnecessary as explained in your essay, so I admit to not abiding by that definition. I was using unnecessary in the sense of not needed to achieve desired goals (precision and recognizability). This of course runs contrary to an assumption that disambiguation may serve one and only one goal.

I think the significant statistics would be the number of successful and unsuccessful RMs. A high number of unsuccessful RMs might indicate the problem you suggest, or possibly indicate that the cited project pages need rewriting to better reflect the consensus that rejects those moves; but a high number of successful RMs indicates something else entirely—that consensus is taking its course, as well it should. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're not interested in interpreting the words I use in the way that I intend them, and insist on interpreting them how you want, then communication is impossible. How about this - I'll interpret your words the way you intend them, and you interpret my words the way I intend them? If there is any question or ambiguity about meaning, then ask. Okay? — Born2cycle — continues after insertion below

Alternatively: Let’s all use language in the way that speakers of the language have generally agreed upon, rather than inviting miscommunication by using words to mean things they do not. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that a big number of successful RMs necessarily indicates that consensus is taking its course. It could be that WP:JDLI is taking its course, with results depending largely on the whims of whoever happens to choose to participate in each RM, and interpret vague policy and guidelines however necessary to support their particular preference. --В²C ☎ 21:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It’s true that that is a possibility, but I’d prefer to assume good faith of any given consensus and assume that the closing admins were being responsible and competent. Any serious study would require investigating the actual discussions rather than just looking at raw numbers. But my point stands that we can’t assume anything from a simple gross count. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

B2C writes "If you don't understand and appreciate the problem of title instability, that explains everything." I, too, don't understand or appreciate B2C's preoccupation with this concept of "title instability". It seems to be a concept unique to him. Can someone else who understands it please explain why it so important? I do understand that if B2C succeeds in getting WP to accept strict algorithms for titling, that titles will be stable, but so what? That seems like the wrong goal. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That’s easy, it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy and the extent to which two of those opposing will go to make article titles unstable can be summed up by two quotes:-

Between two titles that are reasonable for a given topic, the shorter one, by character counting, is more concise, by definition - В²C – at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)

But here's the key to all this: no one else will search for "1947-1953", because it's not an encyclopedic topic. - Dohn joe above.

So we have one who will reduce language to a mathematical equation and the other who does not understand people spend longer looking for things they cannot find! That's two of the three opposing this proposal. The rest are in general agreement (and it appears, many other editors who avoid these discussions like the plague).--Richhoncho (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What about the editors - different ones for each article - who created these articles, uniformly without adding "(album)"? What about the thousands of readers of these articles, who have yet to raise any concern about the titles? This issue simply does not exist outside of WP:AT and WP:RM. Dohn joe (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Response to Dohn joe. Same reason that there are nearly 400,000 articles in Category:Redirects from other capitalisations, let alone other redirect categories. Same reason we keep editing articles. Same reason we have an AfD process, same reason we have a RM process. As you are now clutching at straws without any thought, nor comprehension of what you saying and have no intention of entering a discussion nor changing your mind, consider this conversation finished. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

“What about the thousands of readers of these articles, who have yet to raise any concern about the titles?”—You mean the silent majority? We can’t read anything into their continued silence. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia search engine and external search engine are far superior at helping readers find what they want than editors who think they know making redirects.

"1979-1983" could well be an encyclopedic topic. Readers cannot reasonably be expected to know the limit of encyclopedic topics. If seen as a title (in the category system, in a link, in hovertext, in a downstream reuse, etc) the existance of the time implies that it is an encyclopedic topic. There must have been something significant 1947-1953, a reader should think. They have a look. Damn, fooled again by advertising. It's an obscure commercial product masquerading as an encyclopedic topic.

These few editors who have technical theories on titles should be asked to go away. The project is to serve the readers. Readers will expect the titles to be like titles in the real world. Real world non-fiction titles are not so terse. Titles should reflect the content of what they title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Readers will expect the titles to be like titles in the real world." - I agree. In fact, this is my whole point. Dohn joe (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

But as titled for a broad context. Not following the establishment of a narrow context. Wikipedia titles sit at the broad context. Obscure albums only get mentioned after, with the context of, discussion of the band. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly wrong. WP titles are not intended for a broad context. No one scans raw lists of WP titles to find anything. WP titles are used in narrow contexts, usually to specify the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in question (presuming most people arrive at articles via search engines or links), but also as an internal WP search key by someone who is familiar with the topic (and is thus searching for it). --В²C ☎ 23:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You obviously exist solely in the world of your own experience. You deny that Wikipedia can be downloaded and reused. Have you seen the “Download as PDF” link? Have you ever perused the category system? Have you never read an offsite document that makes explicit reference to a particular Wikipedia article title? Titles are the big text that dominate the top of the first page of the document, text that a readers reads before deciding whether to read the next text. Typically, in Wikipedia article PDFs, the next text is very far below a infobox image. Wikipedia titles are NOT used in a narrow context if you count the ways others use titles. You seem to think the main purpose of the title is to identify a particular page, which ignores the use of the title as the title at the top of page. Titles are only a part of what the search engine uses to answer search queries, and even if they were the only part, more information helps, less information hurts. Someone familiar with a topic is probably not “searching” for it. They are “going” to it, already knowing it is there. You are devaluing readers really searching, or researching, readers seeking knowledge they don’t really have. Your objectives are at the expense of wider and easier dissemination of the knowledge, an in favour of users who are the most common users who already know what they are coming for. Your objective, if algorithmic and minimalist titling at the expense of community consensus decision making and serving the widest readership is contrary to the objective of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In theory we don't need title policy, guidelines or conventions. We could just vote on what title each of us thinks would be most helpful to the reader, and go with that. The very reason we don't do that, and go with policy, guidelines and conventions instead, is title stability. Title stability is an important goal - to minimize time consuming pointless debates about which of two reasonable titles to use: pointless because it doesn't matter very much. The rules should indicate which to use so we don't have to argue about it. In the real world we have traffic rules and conventions. It doesn't really matter whether we choose to drive on the left or the right, but it's important that we all choose one or the other. So, every country has a convention: right or left. Same with what color means stop and what color means go. Or whether the accelerator is on the right or left. Titles are the same. It doesn't really matter whether we use most commonly used names or official names (when applicable), but it is much more important that we decide which one we use, and use that consistently. That doesn't mean there can't be exceptions, but they have to be for good reason. Just like emergency vehicles are allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road and run red lights, and it's allowed to cross the center in order to pass (when safe) but, in general, we have rules that are consistently followed. The alternative is inefficient chaos. Or title instability. --В²C ☎ 23:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no real problem with “title stability” any different to “content stability”. You have imagined a fantasy and generated an even more fantastic solution to an imaginary problem, at the expense of consensus decision making an empowerment of all contributors to contribute.

Pointless debates would be greatly alleviated if you personally and singularly would stop initiating pointless debates.

For example: Talk:Janet_(album)#Alternative:_re-evaluate_Janet. Six weeks after a unanimous rejection of the same proposal, you re-propose it in the middle of another discussion, just to see more editors unanimously reject it again. At explained on my talk page, you appear incapable of understanding the concept of consensus.

Your argument from analogy is off-point. Your false dichotomy is nonsense. I submit, again, that your contributions to the project-space are a net negative, time wasting and misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe wrote immediately above, I submit, again, that your (B2C) contributions to the project-space are a net negative, time wasting and misleading. Quite. B2C has made 106 edits in August, of which only one is on article namespace, an article that was subject to an RM. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Removed sentence which could be interpreted as POV on request of another editor. Left statement of fact. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you have this entirely wrong; stability is irrelevant. The reason to have guidelines on article naming is for consistency. It doesn't matter if an article changed its name between yesterday and today, or what it will be named tomorrow. Those are taken care of automatically by redirects. But consistency means that if an article has a certain name format, you can find the article on a similar related topic by applying the same formatting - you will either end up at that article, sometimes via redirect from unnecessary disambiguation, or a disambiguation page or hatnote from which you can access that article. Either way, the name of the article doesn't matter, as long as it has a discernible relationship to the article topic, and other articles on similar topics have names that can be derived in the same way. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• We have articles on NASCAR races for which the article title changes every single year, when a new sponsor takes over sponsorship of the race. We have an expectation that the name of a cardinal will change when they become Pope, that people will change their names when they change gender identities, possible when they marry, or in adopting a stage name, or dropping the same. Stability is neither a listed goal of our title conventions, nor one particularly consistent with our other listed goals. bd2412 T 03:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, point made. But that's different. Those are not changes subject to debate. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Yogurt or Yoghurt. Mustang, Mustang (horse) or Mustang horse. Cork, Cork city or Cork (city). Chicago or Chicago, Illinois. New York, New York or New York City or New York City, New York. Madonna or Madonna (entertainer). Most proposals at WP:RM. All these titles are equally "good" in terms of user experience. The only reason to debate about them is for consistency in the rules. And a big reason to have consistency in the rules is for title stability. It's pointless to move a title back and forth between two equally "good" titles. With clearer rules, there would be less debate, and more time to make contributions that improve that encyclopedia. --В²C ☎ 18:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

    No one is forced to debate when he would rather contribute to articles. Anyone who feels that way should probably limit himself to one or two posts in administrative discussions (such as RM discussions) and then get on with editing articles to otherwise make them better, and trust consensus to take its course. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If only.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TITLECHANGES is about stability. A simple set of mechanical rules for all moves does not work because people use judgement on each and every article title. In most cases it is obvious what the title shoudl be for example "Battle of Waterloo" is not likely to be a name that many people would consider inappropriate. However for some titles there are different considerations to be weighed and which of the various choices depend on the consensus at the time and given time' consensus can change. What is disruptive is asking for another RM too soon after a previous one. Personally as a rule of thumb I think that at least six months should pass between requests to move to the same name, because such repeated moves become such an editorial time sink, and that effort could be used more constructively in other areas of the project. -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Choosing the best title for an article is always based on consensus. This policy outlines what factors and goals we should consider when reaching that consensus, but how we balance these various factors and goals (which factors and goals we give more or less weight to) will change from article to article, and discussion to discussion... and, of course, consensus can change.

Yes, consistency is one of the factors/goals we should consider... but we are free to give consistency less weight (or no weight at all) if the consensus is that doing so will better achieve the other goals (we do this all the time).

Yes, a good title will be stable... but that does not mean the current title is necessarily stable, and thus must be kept (a different title might end up being more stable than the current one).

It is never disruptive to propose a title change. What can be disruptive is proposing a title change immediately after a consensus discussion has been held (an exception can be made when someone raises a new argument for the change... one that was not discussed in the recently ended discussion). What definitely is disruptive is a) changing a title without consensus, and b) edit warring to change/keep your preferred title. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Stability is not one of the WP:CRITERIA. Precision is. It says a title "is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Year ranges without any clue to the actual topic do not identify the article's subject. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A much more effective way "to minimize time consuming pointless debates" would be for B2C to shut up. He drives these discussions relentlessly, as a look at any relevant talk page history, or at his history in AN/I, makes clear. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe B2C is our Socrates. bd2412 T 03:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In a weird way… that actually makes sense. Discussing my disagreements with him, à la Socratic questioning, is what helped me realize I wanted to propose disambiguating date-range titles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Born2cycle:: Your reasoning doesn't hold up, due to affirming the consequent, if I recall my logic fallacies correctly. While it's a correct statement that "It's pointless to move a title back and forth between two equally 'good' titles" (or, for that matter, to move them back and forth at all, instead of just once, after a good consensus discussion arrives at the most sensible name), the rest of what you said does not follow from that. There is no connection between a) moving titles back and forth, which is an issue of editwarring, and b) how our rules about what titles should be are written. The fact that editwarring over titles is WP:LAME does not prove, in any way, that the (or a) raison d'etre of our titles policy is to prevent movewarring. We already have WP:EDITWAR policy for that, and our policies are not redundant with one another, so the idea is essentially disproven. [They sometimes reinforce and interpret the relevant application of one another, and WP:AT does this at WP:TITLECHANGES. But note that not only is it not among the WP:CRITERIA, it's very narrowly tailored to "[c]hanging one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus", an interpration of WP:EDITWAR + WP:CONSENSUS + WP:NPOV as applied to WP:AT.] The principal actual reasons we have naming standards are a) to prevent time wasted in recycling the same kinds of disputes (e.g. most common name vs. official name, etc.) over titles because they suck up precious editorial time, and b) much more importantly to steer us away from problematic titles that confuse or offend readers. I don't mean to be personally critical, but a large proportion of your edits that pertain to article titles (which actually seems to be about 99% of your edits, at least within recent memory) evince an explicitly (though possibly subconsciously) "editors come first" mentality that's completely inimical to WP's purpose and operation. This is a case in point.

  Readers couldn't give a flying crap whether an article title is changed, as long as it's not changed to something misleading, ambiguous or POV-pushing. Hardly any of them will ever notice any other kind of move. The average reader never even hits the same article twice, unless it's a "utility" article that is updated over time, e.g. "List of some TV show episodes". After even a few uses of WP, disambiguations are "transparent" to the reader; anyone who uses this site even causally doesn't even think twice about an article being at "Pat Smith (footballer)" or "Pat Smith (chef)" instead of at "Pat Smith". WP:NOONECARES.

  Again, AT policy matters for two reasons and two only: Not messing with the readers' heads by picking stupid names, and not recycling the same stupid arguments about the same kind of naming question again and again. (We still do it anyway, because AT isn't clear enough in several places, especially where its vagueness permits a few people to perpetually make up nonsense about an imaginary conflict between AT and MOS).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we doing this? Seems to be widely supported here by experienced editors. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the original question was neutrally worded, but discussion has petered out with only enough input to probably conclude "no consensus", I put an RfC tag on this to draw in more commenters. The previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Date ranges as titles went the same way: A clear majority in favor of disambiguating these names, but just enough opposes that consensus wasn't clear. Let's get it done right this time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_47#Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_.28numbers_and_dates.29_approach had been restarted here as a RFC. I proposed an Estonian compilation album at Talk:1994–1996#Requested_move for (album). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Something we should probably have looked into before we got all hot and bothered over date-range titles... how many of these articles actually pass our various notability guidelines?
A lot of the above discussion relate to various "best of" albums for music groups... but looking at our WP:NALBUM guideline, I am not at all sure that these albums are actually considered notable enough for their own articles (the individual songs on the album, yes... but the album as a whole, no). There is no point in worrying about the titles if the articles themselves are questionable. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

More perspectives would be helpful in the discussion at Talk:Urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people and respect internationally recognized human rights for all ethnic and religious minority groups within Burma (H.Res. 418; 113th Congress), where the question is not so much whether to shorten the title, but what to shorten it to. bd2412 T 00:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Uggh. We need some general guidance on how to title members of Category:United States congressional resolutions like Calling on Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by the Internal Revenue Service (H.Res. 565; 113th Congress) (I wonder what the technical limit on title lengths is). A name like United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121 has two issues: "House" is redundant to "House of Representatives" and I think they start renumbering resolutions every two years, hence a disambiguator like (113th Congress) is needed. I think we should probably avoid resolution numbers in titles. First, we need "US" to disambiguate from another country's House or Senate. So I would by convention begin all titles in the category with US House resolution or US Senate resolution. Disambiguate by year of the resolution only if necessary. Then, for the rest of the title, what are reliable sources calling it? If we can't answer that then maybe it's not a notable resolution. There are hundreds of such resolutions by every Congress, and we cover only a very small number of them apparently. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Before we worry about the article title... I have to question whether a non-binding House resolution like this is really notable enough for its own article. I think the topic should be covered in Wikipedia, but I wonder whether it wouldn't be better covered if pared down and merged into a section of some related article. The point being, we don't have to worry about the article title if we don't have a dedicated article about it. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I must admit, I had not really thought about that. The article as it stands could be reordered and turned into an article on responses to the persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma. There is also Persecution of Muslims in Burma, which notes in the lede that this is primarily the Rohingya people. A possible merge is now being discussed at Talk:Urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people and respect internationally recognized human rights for all ethnic and religious minority groups within Burma (H.Res. 418; 113th Congress)‎#‎Questionable notability. bd2412 T 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As a former professional political activist, I would say that "H. Res. 565 (113th Congress)" looks right to me. The abbreviation is standard, not something WP is making up (in the real world, virtually no one ever writes "House Resolution 565"), the disambiguation is pretty much exactly how anyone would do it off WP (it is natural despite being parenthetic in form), it's concise, and it sufficiently identifies the topic. Its use this way in the real world also makes it the common name. If we really wanted it to be longer, then "House Resolution 565 (113th Congress)" is it, and such a redirect should work, anyway, as well as one from the long title. In a few rare cases some resolution may come to be known by a popular short name in the political press, and a case can be made that such a name is the common name for that resolution (esp. if it starts being used more broadly), but this would be an exception.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This came up in one of the discussions above... and I think it is worth its own discussion. This is NOT about disambiguation. In situations where disambiguation ISN'T needed. Can parentheses be used in an article title to better clarify the topic/subject of an article. For example... Suppose there is a unique song title by the name of "Love is Super-de-do", performed by a band called the Wikipeida Quartet... is it appropriate or beneficial to clarify that the article about that song is about a song... by adding a parenthetical remark: Love is super-de-do (song) or perhaps even: Love is super-de-do (Wikipedia Quartet song).

My own reading of policy is that parentheticals could be used this way (at least we don't have a rule saying they can't)... so perhaps it's more a question of should they be used this way. It's essentially a blending of the song's name into a DESCRIPTIVE title... Thoughts and comments? Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Normally you would use appropriate caps to signify that it's a composition title or trademark or something (e.g. A New Thought for Christmas), and that's usually enough, except when it is inherently very ambiguous, as with many one-word titles (Big (film), Yesterday (Beatles song)). We argue about those and they don't always come out consistently (see 5.0), but I'd think they need the extra parenthetical info whether you prefer to call it disambiguation or not, because they're too ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly a better case to look at for this question would be something like To be, or not to be—should that title include (quote) or (phrase) at the end? It’s arguably not necessarily clear from the title what that article is about. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Errm, I think you both might have missed the point -- This is NOT about disambiguation. In situations where disambiguation ISN'T needed. That is, when some sort of parenthetical is required, should we opt for a more descriptive term? older ≠ wiser 02:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he was asking whether just (song) or (Wikipedia Quartet song) would be preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought the question was: when some sort of parenthetical isn’t required for disambiguation, but the title still does not make the subject entirely clear, is one appropriate? (Which if it isn’t the question, Blueboar, please delete this post.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes... "when some sort of parenthetical isn’t required for disambiguation, but the title still does not make the subject entirely clear, is one appropriate?"... that is a good summary of my question. Blueboar (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a few cases where round brackets are useful other than for disambiguation. See for example the ancestors of Oliver Cromwell who were known as Williams but used a legal alias of Cromwell, the simplest way to include that in the article title was to include it in round brackets eg Richard Williams (alias Cromwell) the other choice was to use Richard Williams, alias Cromwell. Of course Williams is a very common name so without the alias Cromwell a dab extension is needed for Richard Williams eg Richard Cromwell (courtier) . -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION has the beginnings of a list of the topic projects that have formed consensuses to use parenthetical descriptors where disambiguation isn't necessary: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). IMO, WP:PRECISION is otherwise opposed to that, and the topic projects represent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but nothing's come of it except heat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A local consensus is fine... as long as it does not contradict a broader consensus (such as a project wide RFC consensus, or a policy). In this case, I don't see any broader consensus discussions... which is why I ask about it here. I suppose I am asking whether we should have a broader consensus or not? Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

B2C's attempt to push the concept of "unnecessary disambiguation" certainly didn't achieve consensus, so I'd say no. Dicklyon (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But again... I am not talking about disambiguation at all... I am talking about adding a parenthetical description... in situations when just using a simple name is not enough to really let the reader know what the article is about. The motivation for adding the parenthetical isn't that the name is in some way ambiguous... it's more that the name is obscure and uninformative on its own. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This has the potential to provide ammunition for all kinds of arguments about article titles. For example, it could be argued that using scientific names as article titles isn't enough for the "ordinary" reader to know what the article is about, so an English name or an English description (e.g. "flower" or "dinosaur") should be added in parentheses. The article explains the title, not vice versa. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This what? What are you saying has the potential to provide ammo for some silly strawman argument? Anyway, I don't see any movement that way. I was referring to things like "Big" and "Yesterday", which, whether they need disambiguation or not, do not point out the topic of the article even for someone familiar with the field, since they are too common in various fields and don't point out what field they mean. I realize these are not good examples of not needing disambiguation, since they do, but the same question comes up a lot on primarytopic claims, where people want to make one use of a very ambiguous term primary and title the article very ambiguously as a result. I think the "precision" criterion provides the reason to not do that. The example that Blueboar provided is not close to any actual question I've ever seen come up, so this whole discussion is kinda trolling, don't you think? Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Peter coxhead: the article lead is there to let the reader know what the article is about. The title is not the lead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

OK... I am obviously not being clear as to what I am thinking about... so let me try to ask my question in another way:

Are there any circumstances where a parenthetical description would be used in a title other than for disambiguation purposes? If so, what are they? Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Blueboar: As JHunterJ already said: "WP:PRECISION has the beginnings of a list of the topic projects that have formed consensuses to use parenthetical descriptors where disambiguation isn't necessary: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). IMO, WP:PRECISION is otherwise opposed to that, and the topic projects represent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but nothing's come of it except heat." WP:PRECISION and it being against this sort of thing does in fact represent precisely the "contradict[ion of] a broader consensus (such as a project wide RFC consensus, or a policy)" about which you somehow say "I don't see any broader consensus". It's kind of hard to miss. @JHunterJ: Your words were prescient. For more "heat", see the mass RM I just posted a link to a few minutes ago in a separate thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And post-scient. I have a list of past discussions, some with heat, at User:JHunterJ#Local consensus vs. precision. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hit me enough times and I begin to get it. So would it be fair to say that (barring a few rare exceptions) we should use a parenthesis in a title only in situations where we need to indicate disambiguation? Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that we should parentheses in a title only when needed for disambiguation, yes. There exist some exceptions, but it has not yet been determined whether it's fair to say that those exceptions should exist. They appear to me to be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and should not be continued. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Parentheticals theoretically can be used this way (see, e.g., the above discussion about titles of works in the form of date ranges), to ensure that a title is properly precise, or to satisfy one of the other WP:CRITERIA, but WP:NATURAL tells us to use natural phrasing when possible instead of resorting to a parenthetical construction. Thus 103rd United States Congress not United States Congress (103rd). It's generally always better to have an article title of the form "Foo bar" or "Bar foo" than "Bar (foo)", unless the subject is almost always referred to as "bar" without the "foo" being present at all (which is the case with most of the articles we disambiguate parenthetically); the parenthetical form is usually more awkward, and adds unnecessary characters, so shouldn't be used if we don't have to use it. We don't even use it for disambiguation proper, unless necessary (e.g. American football, not Football (American)).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a bunch of ongoing, related WP:RM discussions testing such distinctions right now; WP:AT regulars way wish to comment on them, as they're rather obscure, and have little input yet, but have implications for several hundred article names at least, with tensions between various different WP:CRITERIA:

• Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014
• Talk:Flemish Giant#Requested_moves
• Talk:American Sable#Requested moves
• Talk:Anglo-Nubian#Requested moves
• Talk:Dutch Landrace#Requested moves
• Talk:Asturian Mountain#Requested moves
• Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested moves
• Talk:Blue Grey#Requested moves

These two may also raise related questions:

• Talk:Corsican Cattle#Requested moves
• Talk:Russian Black Pied#Requested_moves#Requested moves

Normally I don't draw attention to RMs at WT:AT, but this talk page presently has two concurrent discussions about the same issues raised in the RMs, indicating continued unclarity about the same point. All or most of these discussions should start showing a consensus in the same direction, one way or the other, or nothing will be resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A recent discussion regarding article titles of compositions (User talk:Gerda Arendt#italics) led to this update of the WP:NCM guideline:

Composition titles that are incipits and have been put to music by several composers are usually regarded as generic names, and so not italicized, e.g. Stabat Mater (Dvořák), unless the composition belongs to an otherwise defined composition type like cantata, e.g. Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1.

My question here is about the explanatory articles like Stabat Mater and Magnificat - is there a rule when these should be italicized? (other random set of examples: Te Deum, Requiem, Tantum Ergo, Salve Regina, Nunc dimittis, Rorate Coeli, Victimae paschali laudes, etc.)

Not knowing very well where to rise this issue I'll leave a note on the many italics-related talk pages (etc) that I started a discussion on this issue here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for italics for cases with only one word or all capital words, because they can't be confused with the text: Magnificat, Requiem, Kyrie, Gloria , Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, Osanna, Agnus Dei, Te Deum, Stabat Mater, Salve Regina. Jubilate.

I am less sure about Locus iste, Nunc dimittis, Rorate coeli, Tantum ergo, Victimae paschali laudes etc, but would certainly like Nunc dimittis treated as the two other canticles (Magnificat and Benedictus). My suggestion: normally no italics, only optional to avoid confusion.

ps: Rorate Coeli and Tantum Ergo should be moved, for consistency with their lead. Words are not normally capital in Latin, with exceptions such as Deum (God) and Regina (name of Mary). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Locus iste doesn't fit in the list of what is being discussed here: the content of that page is about a particular composition (by Bruckner), so already covered by the current WP:NCM guideline.
• Jubilate doesn't fit in the list, it is a disambiguation page, not an explanatory article, I bolded that in my question above.
• (Psalm 100, the piped link, of course also doesn't fit in the list, it is not an incipit)

Note that this is the talk page for article titling issues, not the WP:MOS or one of its subpages.

You're of course allowed to rise whatever relevant question, but I'd like to stay on topic w.r.t. my question (about article titling).

True, WP:AT (more precisely its WP:ITALICTITLE section) takes how it is done in running text as a general principle. Still, my question is about article titling. Even if that would mean we need to update WP:AT by loosening that running text principle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything would be gained, and maybe some confusion might be created, by loosening the running text principle. Gerda's suggestion -- "normally no italics, only optional to avoid confusion" -- looks good to me, and retains just enough flexibility to avoid getting us into difficulties over special cases. --Stfg (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"optional to avoid confusion" doesn't really translate into *article titling* options: WP:DISAMBIGUATION handles confusion avoidance for article titles, I wouldn't see italics as an additional technique to avoid confusion there, so no wouldn't like to see that appearing where article titling options are discussed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also the running text principle doesn't work very well for these incipits, as I found out yesterday perusing google books on the subject. Magnificat or Magnificat? I defy anyone to find out what is the dominant use in reliable sources. That's why I came here. If it had been clear from the reliable sources, I'd have written it down somewhere in a guideline (like I did for the compositions named after these incipits, that was somewhat clearer), no questions asked. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I came here by link and didn't realize that it is a page about titles. However, I think we follow the titles in the text body, right. I tried the new article Locus iste with no italics. If there is no clear preference in sources, we can say Magnificat (for example) with some justification, right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I take your point about "optional to avoid confusion", Francis. "Magnificat or Magnificat? I defy anyone to find out what is the dominant use in reliable sources." As I understand it, usage in reliable sources preferably determines what name to use, but not necessarily what typography, which is what the italics question is. Otherwise, if we found, say, that Magnificat is more often italicised but Te Deum not, which is perfectly possible, then we'd be forced into unnecessary inconsistency of presentation. For this reason, I don't think we have any need to weaken the running text principle, nor anything else in the Article title format section. If there were a standard way to present all such titles, then I'd say something different, but your Magnificat example implies that there isn't even a standard way to present one such title, so we might as well go for internal consistency and avoid confusion. --Stfg (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and like Gerda I'd prefer the consistency to settle on not-italicized for these incipits. Not being sure whether that would be acceptable I asked it here. Now, let's see, I added a sentence to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Poems and lyrics. I hope that settles it. Any objections? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the proper place to bring this is, but I noticed an article naming issue that seems to be addressed.. the article for Chef! the tv show has an exclamation ! mark at the end of it. So, when you try to repost the url, it defaults to sending people to the chef article instead. I think there needs to be testing done of article titles ending in non alphanumeric characters, punctuation and the like. Centerone (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was hoping to get some clarification on the use of exclamations in titles. There was recently a move discussion at Talk:Wonder Pets about whether or not to move the article to Wonder Pets! as there is an exclamation in the logo and a few other places, including intermittent use in copyright records. Other examples of such usage are American Dad!, Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, Go, Diego, Go!, Yo Gabba Gabba! and so on. What's the feeling on this? I don't see it discouraged in the policy. There is a secondary question as to how we determine whether or not to use the exclamation--do we base it on the logo, copyright documents, the primary source's usage? Any info would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

#Exclamation marks an other characters. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Articles, point 5 of 5.

• The final character should not be a punctuation mark unless it is part of a name (Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!) or an abbreviation (Inverness City F.C.), or a closing round bracket or quotation mark is required (John Palmer (schooner)).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems like people missed my comment/inquiry above, so I will repost right here. It seems to me that the problem with punctuation at the end of titles (in my experience at least testing with an article with an exclamation mark at the end) makes it so that the URL does not work properly. "I'm not sure where the proper place to bring this is, but I noticed an article naming issue that seems to be addressed.. the article for Chef! the tv show has an exclamation ! mark at the end of it. So, when you try to repost the url, it defaults to sending people to the chef article instead. I think there needs to be testing done of article titles ending in non alphanumeric characters, punctuation and the like. Centerone (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)" Centerone (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the replies. Centerone's info is noted. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this? Maybe it's an issue for Village Pump: Technical? I guess the answer to my question is that exclamations are not prohibited, and are in fact used often. I assume that the name of a TV series would also qualify. The project page uses Airplane! as an example of natural disambiguation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, how did we not notice this before? Defniitely a WP:VPT problem to raise; those characters need to be URL-escaped.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is someone going to do this? Please note when you do. I don't know the process, so I will leave it to someone else. Thanks. Centerone (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems closely related to this past discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_46#Redirection_of_titles_missing_periods, which referred to the following detailed discussion:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_161#URLs_ending_in_period_cause_issues_when_copied_to_clients_such_as_email.

Generally, terminal punctuation, especially using period, comma, question mark and exclamation mark, ".", ","?","!", should be considered ambiguous with the same title without the terminal punctuation. When this occurs, the title without the terminal punctuation should redirect to the title. eg Willson_v._Black-Bird_Creek_Marsh_Co redirects to Willson_v._Black-Bird_Creek_Marsh_Co.. Where not the case, when a terminal punctuation mark is considered disambiguating, such as with Airplane!, there should exist natural, consistent, recognizable, concise, precise existing redirect, such as Airplane (film).

As terminal punctuation frequently causes problems with urls, and also causes problems with referring to articles offsite in free-flowing text (people will frequently drop terminal punctuation when quoting, for readability), I suggest that readers and editors should be informed of the suitable title/url option that doesn't use terminal punctuation.

This could be done by noting the more reliable redirecting title somewhere on the page, probably in another hatnote.

This could be done by moving the article to the more reliable title, and using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to display the title with terminating puctuation (which would be a redirect). I think this is a superior option, as the more reliable url would be the actual url, being the obvious thing to copy for external use as the url.

ie. Move Willson_v._Black-Bird_Creek_Marsh_Co. to Willson_v._Black-Bird_Creek_Marsh_Co, and use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Willson_v._Black-Bird_Creek_Marsh_Co.}}

Move Airplane! to Airplane (film) and use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Airplane!}}

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted this edit by User:PBS, which changed the language relating to consistency based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Fascinating RM - concise v consistency. I see nothing approaching a clear consensus in that discussion for this specific policy change, and would prefer that consensus be evaluated by someone who is not involved in the discussion. I certainly do not mean to question User:PBS's integrity here, but I think that in his eagerness to implement his own proposal, he jumped the gun a bit on the process. bd2412 T 01:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal made on the 5 September 2014 to reimplement a line that had already been policy until reverted by a PMA (late blocked because of his behaviour over the MOS and using sock-puppets), implemented on 17 September 2014 after the section was archived and with no objections (as can be seen in the links given this was not the first time that this was discussed and implemented). So what was eager about my implementation and is that your only objection? -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• The 2010 bullet point has virtually no content if substance beyond "consistency is unimportant", which is not true. Also, the proposal was buried in a thread with an unfocused beginning, and did not look at all like a proposal to devalue consistency. Consistency is very helpful to readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

please don't use bullet points to reply as it messes up indentation. There has never been consensus for the current wording (it was inserted in 2009 over a disagreement over the wording of Flora during some very large changes to this page). Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Fascinating RM - concise v consistency has links to in place for a couple of months in 2010, which has links to Consistency August 2010 which has a link to Consistency June 2010 which starts with links to five other sections. How does "Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles." devalue consistency? -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OK... so rather than engaging in a slow revert war... let's have a proper discussion and try to find the middle ground.

I note that most of the other bullet points contain some form of hedged language; language that makes it clear that there are limits to the goal... For example, the Precision bullet point includes the word "sufficiently' (which indicates that it is possible to be overly precise), while Conciseness includes the word necessary" (which indicates that it is possible to to have a non-concise title if necessary).

I think what we need is some form of "hedged" language to indicate that it is possible to be overly consistent. The reality is that consistency is the weakest of the five goals... and often takes a back seat to other goals (especially recognizability and naturalness). Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The current (restored) version has:

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

• Recognizability – The title is ...
• Naturalness – The title is ...
• Precision – The title is ...
• Conciseness – The title is ...
• Consistency – The title is ...

I like that better than:

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

• Recognizability – The title is ...
• Naturalness – The title is ...
• Precision – The title is ...
• Conciseness – The title is ...
• Consistency – When ...

That's merely a formalistic consideration. On the content:

The next paragraph of the policy has:

... It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. ...

Which would be inconsistent with the proposed rephrasing of the concistency principle:

When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles

(bolding added) ...which always puts the consistency principle as a goal that can not be favoured over any other. Nonetheless in the specific guidelines sometimes the concistency principle is most determining (think e.g. adding the last name to Oprah for the actual article title per WP:NCP, or not using Moonlight Sonata, more conforming to the first four goals, in favour of the serialized format).

I do think it best also to keep the "see specific guidelines" suggestion in the policy for the consistency principle. In most cases a guideline would be necessary to define the consistent format for a particular series of related topics, e.g. WP:MUSICSERIES. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• The very first response to the proposal to change to PBS's line was Arthur Rubin's statement that "I don't think any of these proposals reflect either what is presently meant by "consistency" or what should be meant by "consistency"..." (emphasis added), which sounds very much like an objection to me. We can not change policies based on the approving nods of two or three editors for a throwaway line in a much larger discussion. Furthermore, we are writing an encyclopedia, not running a "No rules, just right" Outback Steakhouse. Under the revision as proposed, an editor could decide that it would just be more fun and hip if we randomly move one third of our consistently-titled "Economy of [Country]" titles to the equally recognizable "Economics of [Country]", since they can now merely "consider" consistency rather than being required to apply it, and since this new policy appears to discard the need to look at topical guidelines. bd2412 T 15:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  That is not so because to play out the scenario a person move "Economy of [Country Z]" to "Economics of [Country X]", you move it back under WP:RM#Undiscussed moves. The person then puts in a WP:RM the argument would there is no clear guidance in reliable sources for a name of the article therefore, it is considered that giving similar articles similar titles is desirable.

Oppose demoting consistency to apply only when the other criteria don't indicate a choice. All criteria are worth considering with some balance. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let us suppose that a series of names were picked 10 years ago when the name of articles was based on among other things the common name as used on the whole of the internet (which was what common name tended to mean in those days). Let us suppose that if looked at with reliable sources that the names would be different. If someone wishes to move a title to the name based on the other criteria, is it reasonable or desirable by using consistency for the article tile to remain at the title it was given 10 years ago simply to fit in with a "pattern of similar articles' titles"? The problem with the older wording is that we end up with article titles that are justified under consistency when the reliable sources support an alternative. These pages would not have been used if equal weight was to be given to consistency as is given to common name: "Military of ...", Zurich Airport, and Elizabeth II. The older wording (introduced without a clear consensus) is often used support the status quo (when the other criteria support a move), even if the original consensus to title a set of pages was built in a certain way was based on guidelines long since superseded by more recent guidance (particularly the usage in reliable English language sources). -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC) -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It are the guidelines that define the consistency (in most cases, anyway, more than for the other principles that are self-contained without any serial format recommended by guideline), that's why the link to the guidelines should not be removed from the consistency principle. Consensus can change, as well for the weight to be given to each of the principles, as well as regarding the content of the guidelines: the format for desired consistency can change, be deepened, or be (partially) lifted accordingly. I fail to see the problem (other than people using arguments in a discussion that are in fact irrelevant to the disussion... it happens in many RMs without doubt... it happened again in the previous contribution to this section) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above has me thinking... a lot of the debates about titles stem from people not understanding that the five criteria are goals, and not firm and fast rules... perhaps we should rephrase all five bullet points to make them read less like "rules". One way we might be able to do that is to phrase them as questions (that editors should examine and answer)... perhaps something like:

• Recognizable - Is the title recognizable? Look to see how the subject/topic is referred to in sources outside of Wikipedia.
• Naturalness - Is the title natural? Look to see how the subject/topic is referred to in running text, both inside and outside of wikipedia.
• Precision - Does the title need to be more precise? Is it ambiguous? Look to see if there are other subjects/topics that could be referred to with the same title.
• Conciseness - Does the title need to be more concise? Is it overly long? Look to see whether there are other options that might be shorter.
• Consistency - Should the title be consistent with those of similar articles? Look to see how articles on similar topics are entitled. Look to see if there are any project level naming conventions that might apply.

Just tossing this out as an initial idea (running it up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes, as it were). If people like the basic concept of where I am going with this idea, we can discuss specific language later. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Worse, no support from my side. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough... but could you explain why you find it worse? Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(e.c. was expanding my comment to do that precisely, here it is:)

• Not an improvement, no support from my side. Further, it takes sides in the new vs. old version of the 5th bullet (the thing we're actually discussing in the previous section), so not a contribution to that debate, actually a proposal that (unintentionally I'm sure) circumvents the hot potato and reverts partly to the other version (to which my criticism above is applicable). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OK... it sounds like you are objecting to the specific language I used in presenting my idea. Would that be correct? If so, I think you missed my intent. At this point, I am more focused on underlying structure than the language. So... Putting language to one side (for the moment)... and focusing on structure... do you have problems with the underlying idea of phrasing the bullet points as questions (followed by advice on how to answer the question)? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems to me to move in the direction of "title articles however you feel like it, if that's what makes you happy". If the editor reading this is of the mindset that the encyclopedia would be more hip and cool and fun with some wacky, far-out titles, then they are free to answer the questions with "no" and go crazy. bd2412 T 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well... the reality is that an article creator can "entitle an article however he/she feels like". However, it is unlikely that the article will stay at that title if the chosen title is too "wacky" or "far-out". Someone will propose that it be re-titled, and a wacky, far-out title will be unlikely to gain consensus.

Remember that there are basically only two firm rules stated in this policy... 1) the title must be unique (two articles can not have the same exact title) and 2) when there is disagreement over what the title should be, the disagreement is resolved by discussion and consensus. Those two firm "rules" are stated in the opening paragraph of the policy. Everything else in the policy is really more advice and guidance... to help editors find that unique, consensus title. This policy is intentionally as flexible as possible... because it is simply impossible to account for every consideration, every nuance, every factor that needs to be thought about and discussed when determining what the best title will be. Entitling an article is an art... not a science. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Policies should not cultivate disagreement, better contain advise that makes it as likely as possible that the title first chosen is stable. Seeing all this, oppose even more than in my previous comment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am leaning towards liking the idea of phrasing them as questions. My reasoning is that we have editors who choose one of the bullet points and elevate it above all others. If they become questions there is a reasonable chance that they are read together. Or am I too trusting? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Phrasing them as questions seems like asking existential questions about whether we should be doing this. Should titles be recognizable? Should titles be precise? Should titles be consistent? Actually, even if we were to phrase them as questions, why would we not be asking, "Is the title consistent with other titles?" Consistency in titles is what makes us appear to be a reliable source of information, rather than an offshoot of Urban Dictionary. bd2412 T 18:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, they are only the questions that a good editor should be asking themselves when choosing a title. But as I say, I am leaning towards, not supporting, at the moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a good editor should ask themselves these questions. If we only had good editors on Wikipedia, we probably wouldn't need a title policy at all, because every editor would thoughtfully consider recognizability, ambiguity, consistency, and the like before making a title determination without needing to be told that these are important values to which we should conform. We do, however, have editors who are less thoughtful than that, and even those who are motivated by aims other than creating a neutral and usable encyclopedia. From the disambiguation link fixes I regularly make, it is clear that many editors make links without giving any thought to the possibility that the obscure person, album, or object to which they refer might not be the primary topic of the link. Just yesterday, I had an editor literally say to me, "I don't understand why you seem to believe that there is a requirement that titles of different articles need to have some form of "consistency" between them. There has never been any such requirement, the title of one article has no relevance to the title of any other article". When we have editors making such pronouncements, this suggests that our rules are not expressed clearly enough as it is. bd2412 T 00:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

bd2412, I would agree that consistency is important. I entirely disagree with the statement, "The reality is that consistency is the weakest of the five goals." In any given situation, they may not have the same weight; but in general they are all important. Omnedon (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well... it is true that consistency is downplayed more often than the other goals are. In that sense, it is the weakest. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Only in that sense. In practice, every single topical guideline in Wikipedia imposes some elements of local consistency on article titles, and as a result our titles are largely very consistent. Perhaps consistency is downplayed because it is already so widely applied that jarringly inconsistent titles are hard to find. bd2412 T 00:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Consistency is underlying. Indeed, it is very hard to be consistent without being recognizable and natural. The criteria are interconnected and inseparable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

General Comment. It has just been brought to my attention WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where the heading is "Is there a primary topic? is interpreted by some editors as a compunction to have a primary topic. So my reason for leaning towards support evaporates. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Yes. Consistency is underlying. Indeed, it is very hard to be consistent without being recognizable and natural" Military of the United Kingdom is constant with other similar articles, but is it is not the common name and it may or may not be recognisable, but it is not the most recognisable and is not natural (unless the editor knows the underlying consistency rule). Wikipedia could choose to use the full official name for every state as listed at the UN. That would be consistent, but for many states that would not necessarily be recognisable. For example most people would not know the official names for North and South Korea, or China and Taiwan. As for natural one of the problems is different varieties of English. I have seen proposed page moves to move pages from a name to another because the spelling of most of the others in the group is in one dialect of English so the argument goes all of the names in the set should use that form of spelling. One of the problems with consistency is that peoples minds are very good at spotting patterns that do not really exist (eg the canals on Mars), therefore one person's consistency is another person's misnamed article. It is particularly fun when an article is perceived as being in two separate groups of articles where consistency would suggest different names. Going back to the idea of official state names, neutral is another area that causes problems see for example Republic of Ireland v. Ireland (which is subject to an Arbcom ruling). The article Elizabeth II is there in part because people argued that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was not neutral, so the set of consistent royal titles is seen as none neutral by some editors in certain cases. -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

PBS. Underlying consistency rules is not consistency. WP:AT ("Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles") very clearly defines consistency in terms of the result, as it should. "Wikipedia could choose to use the full official name for every state as listed at the UN. That would be consistent," Absolutely not. States do not choose their names according to the pattern of similar states. The rest of your post expands upon a false premise, a false definition of consistency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. "Consistency is underlying": agree with PBS that that misses the point. For each of the more difficult cases the equlibirum for the weight to be given to each of the principles has to be found, and it can be different on a case by case base. Compare this recent discussion where different consistency schemes were weighed, ultimately leading to two out of seventeen of a set of articles not conforming to the most appropriate consistency scheme, for recognizability reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Compare Talk:Mikhaylovsky (surname)‎#Requested move, where consistency was the only point under consideration. The fact that a dispute arises in such an obvious case underscores the need for an unambiguous policy favoring consistency. bd2412 T 14:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Fallacious reasoning. It's not because once and a while a car drives into the water that all cars need to be permanently equipped with floating devices. Think of the kittens fallacy. For a counterexample, see se the example I linked to above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I bet you wear a seatbelt. bd2412 T 15:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also no one in this conversation has suggested removing the bullet point on consistency. Instead it is suggested that it is changed to: "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles" if this had been the advise when Talk:Mikhaylovsky (surname)‎#Requested move was being discussed the change of wording would still have supported the alteration of "last name" to "surname" if surname is the most common dab form. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No it would not; it would no longer be a rule, but merely a "consideration", a term that inherently strips any binding force from the rule. The initial author could then say "well, I considered it and decided not to", and used WP:TITLECHANGES to bar the proposed rename on those grounds. The proposal is absurd. The kind of consistency in titles that it would do away with is the kind that keeps an encyclopedia from becoming a joke. Understanding this keeps editors from becoming one. bd2412 T 15:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the policy change proposed by PBS, for reasons explained in the previous section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(e.c. x2) Guidelines are more like seatbelts (or airbags) than like permanent floating devices, meaning: sometimes discussions will go out of hand whatever is in the guidelines. Guidelines should be as good as possible, not trying to exclude any eventuality. What happens in the last case is more chance of the next discussion going completely out of hand and a relaxation of the guidelines is imposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I just came across Robert N.C. Nix, Sr. and Robert N. C. Nix, Jr.; as you can see, one of them has a space between the "N." and the "C.", which suggests to me that one of them needs to be moved so that both will have a consistent usage - but which one? bd2412 T 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Spaces after periods are normally required, except for affectations and weird compressed formats. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. But why? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would you ever not put a space after a period? That's pretty much not done, except in the old typewriter typography. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon. "Why would you ever not put a space after a period?" Because I am not in that habit, for repeated initials. J.R.R. Tolkien. U.S.A. In fact, I thought the trend was to drop the period in addition to the dropped space. The old typewriter typography is not unfamiliar, especially when typing in a fixed width font, as I am doing here. I still have a telephone book without these periods and spaces (although I rarely use it), and I admit that I have previously _not_ paid much attention to such things. Is there something written about abbreviations, periods and spacing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You must be old, like me. But look at good books; e.g. this one. Fanciful typography in the title, but normal with spaces in the text. We need not be stuck with our typewriter habits in the days of variable-pitch fonts (the last few hundred years, as far as print sources go). Here is another. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• ec. Off the top of my head... Go with most common style in the best sources. If that doesn't work, go with the first nonstub version. Personally, I prefer no space between initials. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We could compromise and go with sources like this one that use thin spaces. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved it already before seeing your note. It is impressive how often this guy (Sr.) gets no space in there while his son (Jr.) is more often spaced. But some sites like this one use the space in N. C. but not in U.S. in the same headline, so there doesn't seem to be a strong feeling about this. In my opinion, the "better sources" are the ones with sensible typography. But others may disagree. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that in the days of typewriters, leaving out spaces between initials this way was pretty common on typed documents, since it would look too spaced out otherwise, with the period being allocated as much space as a letter. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

One might also ask why in Robert N.C. Nix, Sr. Federal Building we don't have the matching comma after "Sr." A few sources do it this way, but most either use both commas or neither, since it's not really a senior federal building we're talking about here. Like with Leland Stanford Jr. University or Leland Stanford, Jr., University; in sources it's either both commas, or none. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

According to this guide, "Spacing between initials in name" is a Chicago versus AP style difference (AP being for newspapers, one those "weird compressed formats" I mentioned). I see there are other guides that go with the old typewriter style, too. I'm surprised. I hope we stick with Chicago and other good guides on this. I don't think it has much to do with the particular person, as I see no consistency about that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't just need to hope, we can set the standard via a consensus here. So how about we agree that initials, should have a space after a . where text follows. We should not specifiably a thin space in a document title, instead that should be left to a style sheet type formatting on display. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "where text follows" but I interpret this differently – another initial is not "text". So I believe we should agree on no spaces between initials. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: If I am understanding this right. In my opinion there should not be space between two letters (initials) of two names, and I do not use them so, B.A. Johnson Jr. and not B. A. Johnson, Jr. The use of the initials Sr. and Jr. are part of a legal name and a comma is not generally warranted.

This would mean "Robert N.C. Nix Sr. Federal Building" would be more correct in general writing, however, according to sources I observed there is a comma after Sr., and may be the legal given name of the building.

Jr. and Sr. are not "initials". The way they should be added to article names of biographical articles is treated in WP:NCP#Disambiguating ("legal" does not enter the considerations)

This does, however, not affect the naming of buildings. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) is a somewhat "dormant" proposal, so applying the general principles of WP:AT would be all that is required. The building you're referring to is currently at Robert N. C. Nix, Sr., Federal Building. Anyone having a problem with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the guidelines have recently changed (after a long discussion at WT:NCP#Why are there spaces between initials?):

• WP:INITS has:

  Punctuation: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Initials

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Initials has:

  An initial is followed by a period (full stop) and a space, unless:

  • The policy on article titles says otherwise.
  • Subsequent naming conventions guidelines say otherwise, for example CC Sabathia, following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)
  • The person had or has a different preferred style for his or her own name. In that case: treat as a self-published name change

--Francis Schonken (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

On 23 August 2014 @SmokeyJoe: edited the Policy shortcut for this section to cut reference of WP:COMMONNAME with WP:UCRN[2] with justification: Replace problematic shortcuts with one matching section title. NB. All existing shortcuts will forever work, but need not necessarily be displayed as if recommended)

Also on 23 August 2014 @Peter coxhead: added WP:RECOGNIZABLE to Policy shortcuts.

On 19 September 2014 I added text: "The longer form link, WP:Use commonly recognizable names, is also available" with justification "Following comment on "COMMONNAME": The longer form link, WP:Use commonly recognizable names, is also available".[3]

This edit was reverted by @VQuakr: but I'm not sure if this was done with an awareness of section history.

The problem of COMMONNAME is explained in the reference that says: "Where the terms "COMMONNAME" and "common name" appears in this policy they mean a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name."

The text of the project page still states: 'This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME"'

I propose a less suggestive edit to say something along the lines of: 'Possible Wikipedia short cuts include: "WP:UCRN", "WP:Use commonly recognizable names", "WP:COMMONNAME".^[1] and "WP:RECOGNIZABLE".'

How does this sound? Sequence of presentation of links?

Links like WP:UseCommonlyRecognizableNames OR WP:CommonlyRecognizableNames could alternatively be created.

Note

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"WP:UseCommonlyRecognizableNames" is not short. The point of a short-cut is that it is short. -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The mention in the policy text is not actually referring to the short cut... it is noting that the term "COMMONNAME" (spelled as one word, in all caps, to distinguish it from the term "common name") has become a "term or art" here on Wikipedia. Even when not linking to the policy, we routinely say things like "This is the COMMONNAME" or "We use the COMMONNAME here on Wikipedia, not the official name." Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Broadly oppose. The point of a short cut is to be short, easy, and easily understood by the in crowd of editors. Unhelpful to this is long shortcuts, and a multitude of shortcuts to the one thing. Attempting to use a shortcut as a ONEWORD summary is much more misleading for newcomers than a single simple shortcut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed as well. The point of shortcuts is they're short and mnemonic. "Longcuts" aren't used anywhere, and are routinely WP:RFDed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Having WP:Use commonly recognizable names be a blue link makes sense, since it is based on the section name. Including mention that this redirect exists within the policy text, however, is unnecessary. Policies should be written tersely. Agree with the others that the links without spaces are not useful as shortcuts. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, my misunderstanding. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it just my impression or is there some slow edit-warring going on on whether or not to display the WP:COMMONNAME shortcut in the AT policy? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think "edit-warring" is overstatement. Instead, I would say that editors are quick to edit the shortcut box, and then second read the discussion here, and then silently accept the consensus here against ongoing prominent advertising of the shortcut "WP:COMMONNAME". (It is misleading, its prominence causes it to be repeated often at the expense of the actual wording of the policy, and when repeated enough people start to think that it is a one-word accurate summary, all bad. It is an old mistake, and the age of the mistake is not a reason to repeat it). The last edit [4] is also clearly contrary to the guideline Wikipedia:Shortcut#Link_boxes. Fuhghettaboutit should explain himself, in the light of the above discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, but we should note that the problem with "COMMONNAME" only extends to the definition of "a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name." The WP:UCRN is far the less ambiguous term. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Without even so much as an edit summary [5] --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted, offender trouted. No one-word summary will ever be perfect. The solution is to consistently remind editors of the policy content, not to remove the massively popular shortcuts. VQuakr (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I do not agree with the "then silently accept the consensus here against ongoing prominent advertising of the shortcut" read on consensus as adequate to justify removal of the six year old shortcut. I suggest a RfC if you feel strongly about it, to foster better attendance and visibility than the quite lightly attended set of mixed opinions provided so far. VQuakr (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, the RfC system is abused by feeding it trivial matters for which there is not even talk page disagreement. There has not been a single substantive arguement in support of retaining advertisement of COMMONNAME, unless you mean to argue that its popularity outweighs its tendency to mislead people as to what the policy linked says? do you mean that once a shortcut is used enough, it *must* be advertised? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "COMMONNAME" is a common and easily remembered redirect for the section, "Use commonly recognizable names". Like 100% of link box shortcuts, it does not convey all the information available in the linked section - it is a shortcut to that section, but it is not "misleading." The RfC closer can determine if the argument is substantive, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As if a few days ago, there were no statements against removal of the WP:COMMONNAME advertisement. With yours, I now see a couple, and will take my time to digest them. Note that the WP:COMMONNAME advertisement is currently live. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Before participating on further discussion about which shortcuts should be advertised, I suggest reading the relevant guideline at Wikipedia:Shortcut#Link_boxes. Then, I suggest, we continue in the thread below, at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Remove_the_sentence:_this_is_often_referred_to_..._.22COMMONNAME.22. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What's this with cutting up a single discussion in several parts and places? Whether or not to remove the quoted sentence can be discussed in #Remove the sentence: this is often referred to ... "COMMONNAME", OK, if you must. Whether or not the shorcut should be displayed is discussed here, in this section, where I started that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There are over 900 project namespace pages using the shortcut - attacking a symptom without any real solution bigger-picture-wise is not yet convincing me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As PBS's new thread below is very closely related, and of greater depth, actually involving changes to policy text, I would prefer to let it play out before returning to the question of whether WP:COMMONNAME should continue to be advertised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, but no edit warring to remove the shortcut before it has played out to full consensus, certainly no slow edit warring in this respect, and least of all no denial of slow edit-warring when there has been (...see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I deny "slow edit-warring", but WP:BRD, & WP:SILENCE instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Up until a day or so ago there was hardly a comment on this talk page in support of the use of the ambiguous COMMONNAME shortcut. In this context I saw the edit bringing the COMMONNAME back into the shortcuts box and, in the absence of comment on the talk page, I assumed that there had been a simple failure to check content here. It seemed to me that this would have been an easy mistake to make on the basis that the helpful explanation regarding the shortcut's ambiguity is relegated into a reference note. In an attempt to clarify issues I developed the text as:

"The Wikipedia short cut "WP:COMMONNAME" is intended to convey the meaning of a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines of an alternative to a scientific name."

This edit had the effect of bring explanatory content from a ref and into the main body of directly accessible text. This action also cut repetition of content and I propose that a similar content be used. Despite having neglected to add an edit summary on my deletion of the shortcut, I provided a clear edit summary to my text content edit. A clear edit summary was added and I'd suggest that this text similar to my attempted edit be used.

The COMMONNAME shortcut does not need any more advertising than it already gets through its current use. We currently have multiple shortcuts in use that each emphasise different aspects of the policy. I propose the sole inclusion of WP:UCRN in the shortcuts box as the shortcut that presents the breadth of meaning of the policy. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The change to the text on COMMONNAME (as opposed to changes to the short cut box) are being discussed in the section lower down the page see #Remove the sentence: this is often referred to ... "COMMONNAME" -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Using only WP:UCRN would be at odds with the guideline at WP:LINKBOXES. WP:UCRN is less recognizable and in much less common usage that WP:COMMONNAME. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone's opened an RfC on using lower case for animal breeds except where they contain proper names, and this is followed by an alternative proposal based on breed standards. Both proposals would be a naming convention as well as style rule, so regulars here are liable to be interested in commenting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Copying the {{FYI}} template without actually giving the pointer seems a bit useless. Where is the discussion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As indicated in the section title... it refers to WT:MOS#RfC - Animal breeds in lower case.

My initial reaction is that the proposals (and alternative proposals) are yet another case of MOS regulars over-thinking the issue and trying to impose consistency and conformity on titles that don't necessarily need to be consistent and conformed (and I have noted my reaction at the RFC... so best if the discussion continue there). Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no "overthining" involved in simply following policy and reliable sources, which is what the alternative proposal over there is. Oh, and sorry, of course I meant to link directly to the RfC when I posted. Mea culpa.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see us moving further and further away from definitive rules about how to make title decisions towards vaguer and vaguer rules, allowing more and more room for "editor judgement". The result? WP:RM is filled with requests to move titles from one reasonable title to another, and there is no solid basis on which to argue whether to support or oppose many of these proposals. And the backlog has grown to be about as long as I've ever seen it. Have you checked it out?

Part of the problem began when we moved from a pure and simple WP:COMMONNAME to the more complicated "as determined by usage in reliable sources". For better or for worse, a simple Google test is at least quick, objective and definitive. But if you say, "as determined by usage in reliable sources", that's not nearly as definitive, nor as objective. Now we get to argue about what determines "usage in reliable sources". Is it scholarly sources? Is it major newspapers? Is it books? Is it dictionary usage? Different interpretations allow for different results in countless title decisions.

The more recent weakening of the recognizability criterion (from recognizable to someone familiar with the topic to someone familiar with the vague "topic area") introduced even more ambiguity into the title decision process.

Now there is talk about moving to "commonly recognized". Commonly recognized by whom? By you? By me? By the majority of whoever happens to be participating? And how do we determine if this title or that is more "commonly recognized"? Personal opinions? Thus title decisions become less and less predictable and much more determined by the views held of those who happen to be participating. Continuity and consistency is lost. Various approaches move in and out fashion. That would all be fine, if it wasn't all so pointless and time consuming. 95% of the time the current title is fine, and so is the proposed title. Without definitive rules, anyone can argue effectively for either title. If the title stays; it's fine. If the title is moved, it's fine. But, regardless of which way it goes, the opposite can be argued, and may prevail, any time in the future. Nothing is really decided. Yes, of course, nothing is in cement on WP, but there is a big difference between decisions made in compliance with rules that are unlikely to change, and decisions made based on nothing nearly as definitive.

By the way, simply throwing more people onto addressing the RM backlog is not the solution. What I would think we would want is movement towards more stability, where more and more articles are at titles that are likely to not change. Instead, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction, towards more and more titles that are likely to change. Titles that have been stable and uncontroversial for years are now being proposed to be made "more recognizable" or whatever, without any guidance whatsoever.

Am I the only one who sees this?

--В²C ☎ 23:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keeping clear of “definitive rules” is a good thing. These policy pages are not for “rule making”, but for documenting good practice and supporting community decision making. Disagree that “vaguer” applies, what’s is being replaced was contorted and unclear.

If WP:RM is overfilled with time-wasting unimportant endless discussion of minutiae, then how do you explain your apparent hypocracy at Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#Maybe_a_multiple_choice_RM??

If you don’t like ordinary volunteers being welcomed in attempting to improve the product, perhaps you would be better suited to volunteering at Citizendium?

Google-tests, and ngram-tests, are definitely for the worse. They don’t discriminate on the reliability or reputation of the sources, and their use decreases intellectual input into the decision making.

Sorting and collating the sum of all knowledge is not necessarily compatible with “definitive” nor “objective”. I suggest that these are poor choices as KPIs. What sources make the best sources? That is a question best left to the article editors, and it should be expected to vary from topic to topic.

“Commonly recognized by whom?” Commonly recognized as used in the best sources. Clearly the expressions in this policy could use some copy-editing.

“Continuity and consistency is lost”? Continuity? It the problem that you like a prior version. You are free to fork any version. “Consistency is lost”? The greatest damage to consistency was caused by you mission to drive concision over all else.

“…so pointless and time consuming. 95% of the time the current title is fine, and so is the proposed title.” Absolutely. Perhaps we need WP:TITLECHANGES and discussions like Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#Maybe_a_multiple_choice_RM? should be speedy-closed as disruptive. It certainly isn’t motivated by improvement of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem at Sarah Jane Brown is that that title blatantly violates WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody refers to her with that name. Following policy better stabilizes titles. See You say you support title stability, but you support [this/all these] moves? How do you reconcile that? for a general explanation that applies here. It's not that hard.

No title change is motivated by an improvement to the article - the article is unaffected by the title. That section is motivated by a desire to improve title stability. It has been controversial for years, and sets a horrible precedent possibly leading to other oddball titles. I also believe a stable title consistent with policy could be agreed upon there, if approached properly.

You did not address the problem of a growing RM backlog and growing instability in titles overall. I suppose you don't care about that. True? --В²C ☎ 03:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an interesting question in what should be the right disambiguator for Sarah Brown; we should keep the question open and fluid until it settles, if ever. But for B2C to be the one churning the discussion while complaining about title stability and too many RMs does seem a bit ironic. In the mean time, it looks to me like on this one the middle name as disambiguator is as good as any, COMMONNAME notwithstanding. If B2C wants COMMONNAME to trump other criteria, he should at least tell us what disambiguator he prefers for this one (maybe he has, and I've missed it?). Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no “problem” at Sarah Jane Brown. The assertion of blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME speaks to the typical clumsy use of shortcuts discussed above, and the fact that your interpretation of it is not policy-in-practice. No, it is frequently the case that a disambiguated biography title is not the name that is used to refer to the person. That’s why the wording needs fixing.

You are wrong to deny that the article title is not part of the article content. Whenever an article is read, it is normal to begin by reading the title. This is different to listening to a song on the radio, where the lyrics are sung without the title having necessarily been previously read. The title words are the most important words on an article, and a better title makes for a better article.

Sarah Jane Macaulay Brown is called some combination of all of these names. At least one calls her Sarah Jane Macaulay. Variations of Sarah Macaulay Brown. The problem with Sarah Brown is that it is (1) not available, and (2) not used, as with any option, to refer to her without previously establishing the context. Problem #2 derives from the fact that the subject is probably not Wikipedia-notable except for the inherited notability from her husband. Clearly an edge-case, not worth continuous analysis.

There is no title instability problem, you are problem-mongering. The RM backlog is not a great issue, no case in the backlog is an urgent problem requiring conclusion. If you are concerned about backlogs, why fuss about today’s 86 “backlogged” RMs, and not contribute to the168 cases in the RfC backlog, or the far worse Category:Articles needing attention, or indeed anything at Template:Resources for collaboration? Because a backlog is not a logjam, because the volunteers are working at their own pace in areas that they judge to be most interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

it is frequently the case that a disambiguated biography title is not the name that is used to refer to the person

That's true for parenthetic disambiguation, but not for natural disambiguation. That is, of course a biography title that is disambiguated parenthetically is frequently almost always not the name that is used to refer to the person - that's inherent in parenthetic disambiguation! But natural disambiguation is, you know, WP:NATURAL (as in "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English"). Sarah Jane Brown is NOT natural - nobody refers to her like that.

The difference with the other backlogs is that these title changes do not do anything to improve Wikipedia directly. A few help indirectly by moving towards relative title stability (which only occurs when a title is changed to be better in line with policy). Those are the only ones I support; I oppose all others.

Dicklyon, I would support any of the alternatives listed in that section I started over the current title, as all would bring that title in better alignment with policy. --В²C ☎ 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy tells us what criteria to consider, not what title to choose. You really find all of those preferable? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

B2C, you are attempting to redefine "natural disambiguation" to avoid middle names? Why? Compiled works of biographies have always used middle names. Also, I am quite sure she is called Sarah Jane Brown, in her passport, on the electoral roll, here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Better titles, better for the readers, improve the product. Therefore, RM discussions are about improving the encyclopedia. Otherwise, they should be deprecated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Come on, SmokeyJoe, you're smarter than that. That page on thefamouspeople.com is obviously a rip-off from WP! I can't find the exact version, but this one is close[6].

Yes, in many cases middle names are commonly used - but not in her case! Titles are supposed to be recognizable - Sarah Jane Brown is not. It's an embarrassment.

The differences we're talking about make no difference to the reader. Even Sarah Brown vs. Sarah Jane Brown doesn't matter to the reader - except that using the middle name in this case is misleading. --В²C ☎ 06:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to look at how she refers to herself, check this out. --В²C ☎ 06:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Two comments....

1) WP:COMMONNAME is not a "rule" that can be violated.... it is a mechanism for finding the most recognizable name (and recognizability itself is a goal, not a rule).

2) The issue with the Sarah Brown article is that we can't simply use the COMMONNAME... because, in this case, the COMMONNAME has to be modified by the need to disambiguate. The contention arises from disagreement over how best to disambiguate. Should we disambiguate by including her middle name (an acceptable form of disambiguation), or by adding a parenthetical (also an acceptable form of disambiguation)? Now... If the UK had a standard term for the wife of the Prime Minister (similar to the way the US has the term "First Lady" for the wife of the President) then we would quickly reach a consensus to entitle the article [[Sarah Brown (<term>)]] as that would be an obvious way to disambiguate ... but, unfortunately, such a term does not exist. So we have to come up with some other way to disambiguate. At this point the consensus is to use her middle name to disambiguate... and consensus is ultimately how we determine the best title for an article... That's "the rules". Of course, reaching a consensus is often a messy thing, and WP:Consensus can change is also "the rules" (ie consensus is not necessarily "stable"). Hence the continued discussion about the best title for that specific article. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Inserting a middle name may be an acceptable form of natural disambiguation - if the person is question is known by their full name including the middle name. That is not the situation we have here, so inserting a middle name is not an acceptable form of disambiguation in this case.

There has never been consensus to use her middle name - one closer made a rather dubious decision to use that title. Using discussion to find an acceptable way to disambiguate, supported by consensus, is why I started that section. Your help would be appreciated. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how is the former "first lady of the UK" Sarah Brown not the primary topic of the term? This subject outpaces all other topics combined in terms of article views, and seems far more likely to be of long-term historical significance than the next most viewed subject, an actress. To me, this appears to be suited for a primary topic designation and an Apple-type hatnote pointing to the second-best possibility, with the remaining very minor possibilities moved to Sarah Brown (disambiguation). bd2412 T 16:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes; agreed. I argued that there. Read the last discussion. Got shot down because of relatively low view counts. Insisting on meeting primary topic criteria in (effectively) a two dabs situation is silly. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BD2412, that would be Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#Requested_moves_.28No._9.29, closed as no consensus. The close should be respected, or reviewed at MR, and the same question not revisited for a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Because, BD2412, the spouse of a PMs is not politically or socially significant, the one exception in modern times was Mrs Blair but that was more to do with her professional standing before her husband became PM. Politically significant, are women who become ministers of shadow ministers. The socially significant women of the British establishment are the Queen and her brood. -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd proposition, considering that we have articles on every single one of them going back 140 years, and a few from earlier times than that. We do not tend to have such broad coverage of insignificant topics, and there is a distinct trend for political spouses to be more significant in modern times, when they receive more coverage and often have more opportunities to put their own careers forward. bd2412 T 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --В²C ☎ 22:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, continuing discussion is not disrespecting a no consensus close. Discussion is how we find consensus on WP. --В²C ☎ 22:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. If after the close, the discussion immediately continues along the same lines, then the close is effectively meaningless. A pause between discussions is a good idea. If there is a case for a definitive rules, to is this anti-filibuster rule: Before restarting a similar discussion, in the absence of significant new information, wait for two months after the preceding "no consensus" close, and wait six months after a preceding close finding a consensus.

You have, less than two days after a "no consensus" close, reopened the same title discussion, blithely repeated previously discussed ideas, re-introduced broadly discredited ideas, all without any new information. This is disrespectful to the preceding close, and disruptive. At the very least, the highly focused titling discussion should be put on a subpage so as to not disrupt the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• A large part of the problem at Sarah Jane Brown is that no article title is perfect. Sarah Brown would be everyone's favourite, but there is another famous Sarah Brown. Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is the natural disambiguator, but some consider this to be sexist. There are incredibly many names from which to choose: if you read the archives, Sarah Jane Brown was chosen in quite a strange way and the level of discussion on the page since this indicates its unsuitability. B2C has suggested a multiple choice RM. This has a large advantage over what is currently happening, when editors are regularly starting single choice RMs just to get something less worse with what we currently have. What we need to do is to come up with a set of possibilities and choose the best from all of these, instead of taking each name on an individual basis. If Sarah Jane Brown is judged to be the best title, then we can claim there is consensus and discourage future RMs, avoiding further debates. If another title is judged to be the best title, the article can be moved, we can claim consensus and avoid further debates. Surely this is the beginning of the end of the problem. I made a suggested template for a multiple choice RM here [7]. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Totally agree, except with the timing. I'm not convinced the choice that will garner the most support has been listed yet. As long as people are still coming up with ideas, let's not stop that process. Once we're really out of ideas, then we can go forward with a formal RM, and notify all previous participants. Completing that list, by the way, would be helpful. --В²C ☎ 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I have just finished the list for you. It is quite long, but that indicates the problem we have here. I will not have the time to help much further, but I urge everyone here to consider a range of names and participate in a multiple RM. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Varicose veins#RfC: Propose moving title to singular form. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Requested move and a stab at creating a dedicated style guideline at User:Fuhghettaboutit/Wikipedia:Title stylization.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the Five Virtues (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency) are going to be broadly in agreement with the statement "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Of course they are. However, with sports stadiums these are starting to pull apart so some degree. It's one thing (and bad enough) when Original Team Founder Stadium is renamed to Some Company Stadium, but when the renames begin to come fast and furious and the names become ephemeral, you start to get more and more of a disconnect between what the average Joe calls the stadium -- which will best meet Recognizability and Naturalness -- and the legal name of the stadium. Since we have (to this point) a propensity to go with legal names, this puts Recognizability and Naturalness in tension with Consistency, among other problems.

Anyway, this question is raised for a particular instance at Talk:O.co Coliseum#Requested move 2 and I invite editors interested in this to take a look at some of these issues which I laid out in more detail there. It may be that we ought to have a discussion here over whether we need rethink how we handle name of sports venues generally in order to get Recognizability, Naturalness, and Consistency in synch. Herostratus (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree completely. There are sports-related events that I have noticed have their article title changed almost every year based on their changing corporate sponsor (or even based on the particular product that a sponsor wishes to promote that year). Examples include the DRIVE4COPD 300, an auto race that is now on its sixteenth corporate name (past names include three different Hershey's chocolate products and three different Goody's medicine products), the NorthernTool.com 250, an auto race that has gone through twelve names in thirty years, and the current Sun Life Stadium, now on its seventh name and fifth Wikipedia title. bd2412 T 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• My feelings on this are, when the name is a cultural one given by the people or language - Statue of Liberty versus Liberty Enlightening the World - then we are good to use that. However, if the common name was a self-given name, then we should respect the changes to that name, no matter how popular or common the use of the first name is, because at that point we are being inaccurate and accuracy matters more than commonality. Case in point: The people of Chicago did not confer the name "Sears Tower" upon that building, so we should respect when the building's owners renamed it to Willis Tower. Likewise, the people didn't name it Joe Robbie Stadium, or Oakland-Alameda County Stadium, or the Great Western Forum. These names changed and the change needs to be respected. --Golbez (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  I do not think that usage in reliable sources should be interpreted that way. If the usage in reliable sources changes so should the article title. The problem thatHerostratus identifies, is more perplexing. For commercial reasons, newspapers and broadcasting companies tend to start using the commercial name that things like stadia are currently named. This can be so perverse that something like the The O2 Arena can be renamed North Greenwich Arena for the Olympics, just because the Olympic federation wants to get every penny it can and does not want to give away free advertising by using the already commercial name for a venue (and broadcasters go along with it). Even non-commercial broadcasters like the BBC go along with these ephemeral names--They probably have to for contractual reasons and the right to broadcast the Olympics or whatever--, so unless we are willing to junk usage in reliable sources after a name change for commercial buildings, we are stuck with this problem. -- PBS (talk)

• I would definitely support keeping the name to the "long established" one if it is the case that the majority of sources throughout the history of the stadium use that name, instead of just the current corporate branding. There are stadiums that are built from the ground up with the corporate branding, and that we probably can't address but the example above is a good case where the common name is not necessary the common name at the present. Redirects and disambiguation and proper lead sentences can direct all corporate branding names to the right place. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• This sounds like the standard problems of commercial naming rights. Often, people refuse to use the obviously advertising name, especially when it changes often, choosing to use a moderately well recognized non-branded name. Usually, the stadium will have had a non-branded name. Failing that, a descriptive name, eg "Locality stadium" is usable. The general principle to drive this as a Wikipedia-rule is WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia should resist being used to perpetuate commercial promotion. Commercial names that are obviously short term advertising should be discouraged as Wikipedia titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• WP:NOTPROMOTION has nothing to do with it. This covered by WP:UCRN (aka COMMONNAME) and WP:TITLECHANGES. We don't necessarily use the "official" name of the stadium... we base our title on what reliable sources (especially those that are independent of the subject) call it. When the official name of these stadiums changes, we look to the sources written after the name change took place and see what they do... if they continue to call it by the "old" name, then that is what we should entitle our artilcle... but if the sources make the switch to "New" (corporate sponsored) name, we would follow suit. Even if this means our title changes every six months... the key is to follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's the thing, though - of COURSE sources are going to call it by the new name, as in the whole world of sports and promotion, the main sources reporting on this have a vested interest to make sure the promotion is called out (I'm not saying there's COI, but the sporting media are very sensitive to handling promotion right). The sourcing that would have a better chance of the keeping the right name are the local papers talking about the venue outside of the sporting area - such as city zoning issues, economic viability, etc. And those are going to be outplayed by the sports coverage. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• As another data point, concider that while the college bowl games (eg Sugar Bowl) all have sponsors and are reported in sources as "The So-and-So College Bowl", everyone and their brother still calls them as "College Bowl", save for the coverage of the game itself. And these promo change hands on something just less frequent than year-to-year. So our articles properly keep them as the well-established common name, "College Bowl" name and then highlight the current commercial promotion within the body/infobox. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have a feeling that there is a cultural divide at work here as well, as it has appeared to me that British/European articles are more likely to refer to an arena or event as the "foo event/arena (known as sponsored name for sponsorship reasons)..." while North American articles will just use the proper name, sponsor and all. I don't think either is wrong, really, and find no problem at all with the current situation. As far as complaining about changing sponsor names every year goes, WP:NOTPAPER. Resolute 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTPAPER is really about the size of the encyclopedia; it does not address the more serious problems of unstable titles yielding wrong results. For example, if a sponsor ends its sponsorship of a stadium or event in Virginia, and begins to sponsor a different one in Tennessee, suddenly all of the incoming links that point to the name of the original subject will be pointing to a different subject in the wrong state, or to a disambiguation page. This is not a hypothetical concern; it is exactly what happened with Goody's Headache Powder 500, when Goody's changed its sponsorship from one race to another. bd2412 T 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, you could deal with that through redirects that point to the current titles of the race. Goody's 500 (Bristol), Goody's 500 (Martinsville, spring) and Goody's 500 (Martinsville, fall), though the latter two are admittedly ugly. My point wrt not paper was that we have the capability of updating articles when stadia change names and therefore locking into an obsolete title creates an issue of placing convenience above accuracy. Resolute 15:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • We did deal with them. It was a lot of work, and will be every time a corporate sponsor decides to switch its support to an event that better suits its commercial interests for that moment. However, the fact that these links were fixed does not mean that links generally will be fixed. There are many instances where page moves carelessly leave behind dozens or hundreds of wrong links, and since the mover of the page doesn't address them and no one else knows they're wrong, they stay wrong pretty much forever. All of this results from following unstable corporate titles, rather than stable traditional or geographical titles where the latter are available. bd2412 T 15:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Granted. However the NASCAR example is really an extreme that I don't think bears a strong resemblance to the issue of stadia naming. The Scotiabank Saddledome has had only four names in 32 years, and is perhaps a more representative example of the issue originally brought up here. However, I might note that the European model of naming that I mentioned above might be a potential solution for the NASCAR naming issue, even if it flies in the face of general naming conventions. "The Martinsville spring race, known for sponsorship reasons as the {this year's sponsor} 500 is a NASCAR race..." Resolute 15:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, I agree that NASCAR races are an extreme example, largely because they change names so often. Some corporate names for stadiums may be rock-solid by comparison. I still worry about the ephemerality of titles left in the hands of commercial interests, which have an incentive to pursue the course of action that is most profitable, not necessarily most stable. bd2412 T 15:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Agreed, but given every new arena is built with a corporate name from the start, there's really nothing we can do about it. Resolute 22:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)