![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Strong consensus not to carry out the proposed move and Consensus to move all to US (etc.) - The need to identify the specific senate was considered important in the discussion for accuracy, the shorter form "senate" was preferred for conciseness, this militated against the originally-proposed moved of the nominator. SMcCandlish's subsequently-proposed move of all to "US" found support from the !voters who !voted subsequent to their proposal, based on conciseness.( non-admin closure) FOARP ( talk) 09:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
– The use of the term senatorial or congressional substantially shortens the titles, the existing titles being between 23% and 35% longer than those proposed;
article title criterion 4). Both terms are commonly used (criteria 1 and 2) and neither introduces any ambiguity (criterion 3: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that
).
(Criterion 5 – consistency – doesn't really come into play here. There is no relevant topic-specific naming convention and these are the only five similarly named articles about specific politicians' tenure in a particular office where the politician didn't sit in two similarly named legislative bodies, except for those articles that begin with Chancellorship of, Chief Ministership of, Governorship of, Labour Party leadership of, Mayoralty of, Premiership of, or Presidency of. Theoretically, we could use Senatorship of for four of the articles, but I don't think this usage would meet the naturalness criterion.) 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 05:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 00:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. ... Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable.Accordingly, citations of the number of Google Search hits a given term gets must be taken with more than a grain of salt as Google Search is indexing primarily popular (e.g., journalistic) sources. It seems like this argument is using the common-style fallacy, to borrow SMcCandlish's coinage. (And I'm not sure why we're including "Kennedy" in our search – for whatever reason, the numbers including "Kennedy" exaggerate the difference in the number of Google hits between "senatorial career" and "senate career".)
Precision may be warranted, as there are State Senates, and many politicians have careers there too.I address this in my reply to Wasted Time R, but as our article titles policy provides at WP:PRECISE,
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Huey Long, and John McCain never sat in state senates. For those who sat in the US Senate and a state senate, of course further disambiguation would be required for an article focused on either their federal or state senatorial career. (For the same reason our article about the Western Australian state politician Dan Sullivan is located at Dan Sullivan (Australian politician), whereas the titles of our articles about the American politicians named Dan Sullivan – Dan Sullivan (Anchorage mayor) and Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator) – require further disambiguation.) The only articles in this group are two articles about Barack Obama. They would remain at their existing titles, which serve as a form of natural disambiguation. 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 02:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The readers of Wikipedia are a general audience, not academics or scholars.That's obviously true. But how do you reconcile your position of deference to specifically popular sources with WP:TONE? Is this not an instance of the kind of original research discussed by Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy? And are you not arguing
that if a particular typographic stylization turns up commonly in newspapers, blogs, and other popular publications with a less formal register of English usage than the precise language of encyclopedic writing, that the newsy or bloggy stylization is the best or only way to write about the topic in question, and must be used on Wikipedia?
I used "Kennedy" to hook the phrase and ensure we are talking about the United States Senate ...Given that popular sources skew overwhelmingly in favour of contemporary topics, particularly with respect to politics, might it be worth posting what those numbers are when we take out "Kennedy"? 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 03:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The only such articles a where the politician did sit in two similarly named legislative bodies are those two articles about Obama.the only five similarly named articles about specific politicians' tenure in a particular office where the politician didn't sit in two similarly named legislative bodies, except for those articles that begin with Chancellorship of, Chief Ministership of, Governorship of, Labour Party leadership of, Mayoralty of, Premiership of, or Presidency of. [a]
The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, as well as criterion 3 – precision – which states,
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.
Notes
The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above [emphasis in original].
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 00:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
US Senate career of Huey Long →
United States Senate career of Huey Long – @
GoodDay:; @
SnowFire:; @
SMcCandlish:; @
FOARP:; @
ModernDayTrilobite:
There are numerous problems with titling a page "US Senate career of [politician]". First of all, "US" is not American English, so if the title were to be abbreviated, it would need to be "U.S. Senate career of". This would be consistent with the titles of other articles concerning American subjects, such as U.S. Routes or
independent agencies of the United States government. However, it also does not make much sense to abbreviate the title in the first place. The page "
United States Senate" is not abbreviated as "U.S. Senate", nor "
United States" as "U.S.", and neither should these articles. State senate articles, such as
Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, are not titled "I.L. Senate career of Barack Obama", so I don't see why U.S. Senate articles should be. Also, I noticed that the article
United States Senate career of Barack Obama was not moved, although that could be due to the editors not being aware that the article existed. In any case, I would strongly support a move back to the original titles. --
Politicsfan4 (
talk) 17:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Strong consensus not to carry out the proposed move and Consensus to move all to US (etc.) - The need to identify the specific senate was considered important in the discussion for accuracy, the shorter form "senate" was preferred for conciseness, this militated against the originally-proposed moved of the nominator. SMcCandlish's subsequently-proposed move of all to "US" found support from the !voters who !voted subsequent to their proposal, based on conciseness.( non-admin closure) FOARP ( talk) 09:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
– The use of the term senatorial or congressional substantially shortens the titles, the existing titles being between 23% and 35% longer than those proposed;
article title criterion 4). Both terms are commonly used (criteria 1 and 2) and neither introduces any ambiguity (criterion 3: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that
).
(Criterion 5 – consistency – doesn't really come into play here. There is no relevant topic-specific naming convention and these are the only five similarly named articles about specific politicians' tenure in a particular office where the politician didn't sit in two similarly named legislative bodies, except for those articles that begin with Chancellorship of, Chief Ministership of, Governorship of, Labour Party leadership of, Mayoralty of, Premiership of, or Presidency of. Theoretically, we could use Senatorship of for four of the articles, but I don't think this usage would meet the naturalness criterion.) 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 05:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 00:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. ... Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable.Accordingly, citations of the number of Google Search hits a given term gets must be taken with more than a grain of salt as Google Search is indexing primarily popular (e.g., journalistic) sources. It seems like this argument is using the common-style fallacy, to borrow SMcCandlish's coinage. (And I'm not sure why we're including "Kennedy" in our search – for whatever reason, the numbers including "Kennedy" exaggerate the difference in the number of Google hits between "senatorial career" and "senate career".)
Precision may be warranted, as there are State Senates, and many politicians have careers there too.I address this in my reply to Wasted Time R, but as our article titles policy provides at WP:PRECISE,
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Huey Long, and John McCain never sat in state senates. For those who sat in the US Senate and a state senate, of course further disambiguation would be required for an article focused on either their federal or state senatorial career. (For the same reason our article about the Western Australian state politician Dan Sullivan is located at Dan Sullivan (Australian politician), whereas the titles of our articles about the American politicians named Dan Sullivan – Dan Sullivan (Anchorage mayor) and Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator) – require further disambiguation.) The only articles in this group are two articles about Barack Obama. They would remain at their existing titles, which serve as a form of natural disambiguation. 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 02:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The readers of Wikipedia are a general audience, not academics or scholars.That's obviously true. But how do you reconcile your position of deference to specifically popular sources with WP:TONE? Is this not an instance of the kind of original research discussed by Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy? And are you not arguing
that if a particular typographic stylization turns up commonly in newspapers, blogs, and other popular publications with a less formal register of English usage than the precise language of encyclopedic writing, that the newsy or bloggy stylization is the best or only way to write about the topic in question, and must be used on Wikipedia?
I used "Kennedy" to hook the phrase and ensure we are talking about the United States Senate ...Given that popular sources skew overwhelmingly in favour of contemporary topics, particularly with respect to politics, might it be worth posting what those numbers are when we take out "Kennedy"? 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 03:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The only such articles a where the politician did sit in two similarly named legislative bodies are those two articles about Obama.the only five similarly named articles about specific politicians' tenure in a particular office where the politician didn't sit in two similarly named legislative bodies, except for those articles that begin with Chancellorship of, Chief Ministership of, Governorship of, Labour Party leadership of, Mayoralty of, Premiership of, or Presidency of. [a]
The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, as well as criterion 3 – precision – which states,
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.
Notes
The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above [emphasis in original].
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 00:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
US Senate career of Huey Long →
United States Senate career of Huey Long – @
GoodDay:; @
SnowFire:; @
SMcCandlish:; @
FOARP:; @
ModernDayTrilobite:
There are numerous problems with titling a page "US Senate career of [politician]". First of all, "US" is not American English, so if the title were to be abbreviated, it would need to be "U.S. Senate career of". This would be consistent with the titles of other articles concerning American subjects, such as U.S. Routes or
independent agencies of the United States government. However, it also does not make much sense to abbreviate the title in the first place. The page "
United States Senate" is not abbreviated as "U.S. Senate", nor "
United States" as "U.S.", and neither should these articles. State senate articles, such as
Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, are not titled "I.L. Senate career of Barack Obama", so I don't see why U.S. Senate articles should be. Also, I noticed that the article
United States Senate career of Barack Obama was not moved, although that could be due to the editors not being aware that the article existed. In any case, I would strongly support a move back to the original titles. --
Politicsfan4 (
talk) 17:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)