![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Bruce Jenner was unilaterally moved to Caitlyn_Jenner. There was an RM to move it back (now archived), which was closed per SNOW within hours. I seem to be the only one concerned about what appears to me to be a blatant disregard for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AT, but if no one else is concerned I'm not going to push it. -- В²C ☎ 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be good to update AT with the changes to WP:MOSIDENTITY for consistency. -- haminoon ( talk) 22:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VQuakr it is interesting that you write "If we are conflating essays with policy now" yet above you have conflated an unrelated guideline with the article titles policy when you wrote " MOS:IDENTITY supports the move". It does not. The MOS section to which MOS:IDENTITY links states "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by .... (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article)". The change of name of the subject of an article is covered by a sentence in the article title policy section " Use commonly recognizable names": "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". -- PBS ( talk) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
We had a discussion on the talk page of Death of Sandra Bland about moving the article to just Sandra Bland Talk:Death_of_Sandra_Bland#Requested_move_1_August_2015. Basically a person may not be notable, but there Murder, Killing, Shooting, Death is. I think we should standardize this and just use the victims name for the article. It's what will be searched for by readers, it lessens our pontificating ("this was a shooting, see refs", "this was a murder, see refs"), and it's just simpler. What I said there was
So here it is. Not sure if this is the right place for this, I'm not very active anymore. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#How to apply "1E" guidelines to murderers. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we should add the subject as part of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. We have seen similar discussions many times, and I don't think consensus would like using just person's name for an article whose subject has very little biographical info and a lot of details related to one event primarily involving a person. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
stuff in green in Early childhood section is about Emmett
|
---|
Emmett Till was the son of Mamie Carthan (1921–2003) and Louis Till (1922–1945). Emmett's mother was born in the small Delta town of Webb, Mississippi. The Delta region encompasses the large, multi-county area of northwestern Mississippi in the watershed of the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers. When Carthan was two years old, her family moved to Argo, Illinois, as part of the Great Migration of black families to the North to escape lack of opportunity and unequal treatment under the law.[3] Argo received so many Southern migrants it was named "Little Mississippi"; Carthan's mother's home was often used as a way station for people who had just moved from the South as they were trying to find jobs and homes. Mississippi was the poorest state in the U.S. in the 1950s, and the Delta counties were some of the poorest in Mississippi.[4] In Tallahatchie County, where Mamie Carthan was born, the average income per household in 1949 was $690 ($6,755 in 2013 dollars); for black families it was $462 ($4,523 in 2013 dollars).[5] Economic opportunities for blacks were almost nonexistent. Most of them were sharecroppers who lived on land owned by whites. Blacks had essentially not been allowed to vote since the white-dominated legislature passed a new constitution in 1890, were excluded from politics, and had very few legal rights. Till was born in Chicago and nicknamed "Bobo" as an infant by a family friend. His mother Mamie largely raised him with her mother; she and Louis Till separated in 1942 after she discovered he had been unfaithful. Louis later choked her to unconsciousness, to which she responded by throwing scalding water at him.[6] For violating court orders to stay away from Mamie, Emmett's father Louis was forced by a judge to choose between jail or enlisting in the U.S. Army in 1943;[7] he was executed in Italy in 1945 after being convicted of rape and murder by a court-martial. At the age of six Emmett contracted polio, leaving him with a persistent stutter.[8] Mamie and Emmett moved to Detroit, where she met and married "Pink" Bradley in 1951. Emmett preferred to live in Chicago, so he relocated to live with his grandmother; his mother and stepfather rejoined him later that year. After the marriage dissolved in 1952, Bradley returned to Detroit.[9] Mamie Till Bradley and Emmett lived alone together in a busy neighborhood in Chicago's South Side, near extended relatives. She began working as a civilian clerk for the U.S. Air Force for a better salary and recalled that Emmett was industrious enough to help with chores at home, although he sometimes got distracted. His mother remembered that he did not know his own limitations at times. Following his and Mamie's separation, Bradley visited and began threatening her. At eleven years old, Emmett, with a butcher knife in hand, told Bradley he would kill him if Bradley did not leave.[10] Usually, however, Emmett was happy. He and his cousins and friends pulled pranks on each other (Emmett once took advantage of an extended car ride when his friend fell asleep and placed the friend's underwear on his head), and spent their free time in pickup baseball games. He was a natty dresser and often the center of attention among his peers.[11] In 1955, Emmett was stocky and muscular, weighing about 150 pounds (68 kg) and standing 5 feet 4 inches (1.63 m). Despite his being only 14 years old, whites in Mississippi claimed Till looked like an adult.[12] Mamie Till Bradley's uncle, 64-year-old Mose Wright, visited her and Emmett in Chicago during the summer and told Emmett stories about living in the Mississippi Delta. Emmett wanted to see for himself. Bradley was ready for a vacation and planned to take Emmett with her, but after he begged her to visit Wright, she relented. Wright planned to accompany Till with a cousin, Wheeler Parker, and another, Curtis Jones, would join them soon. Wright was a sharecropper and part-time minister who was often called "Preacher".[13] He lived in Money, Mississippi, a small town in the Delta that consisted of three stores, a school, a post office, a cotton gin, and a couple hundred residents, 8 miles (13 km) north of Greenwood. Before his departure for the Delta, Till's mother cautioned him that Chicago and Mississippi were two different worlds, and he should know how to behave in front of whites in the South.[14] He assured her he understood.[15] Since 1882, when statistics on lynchings began to be collected, more than 500 African Americans had been killed by extrajudicial violence in Mississippi alone.[16] Most of the incidents took place between 1876 and 1930; though far less common by the mid-1950s, these racially motivated murders still occurred. Throughout the South the racial caste system was predicated by whites upon avoiding interracial relationships and maintaining white supremacy. This did not prevent white men from taking sexual advantage of black women, but was meant to "protect" white women from black men. Even the suggestion of sexual contact between black men and white women carried the most severe penalties for black men. A resurgence of the enforcement of such Jim Crow mores was evident following World War II.[17] Racial tensions increased further after the United States Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education to end segregation in public education. Many segregationists viewed the ruling as an avenue to allow interracial marriage. The reaction among whites in the South was to constrain blacks forcefully from any semblance of social equality.[18] A week before Till arrived, a black man named Lamar Smith was shot in front of the county courthouse in Brookhaven for political organizing. Three white suspects were arrested, but they were soon released.[19] |
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. [emphasis added]
These titles are about explicitly limiting the implied scope of coverage. Wikipedia should not be the original and only publisher of a biography. An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe, and its existence invites contributions that round out a biography.These pages are titled this way for a very good reason. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC on disamibiguation for clarification on whether WP:DAB should cover use of disambiguation (often WP:NATURAL) for clarifying inherently ambiguous names as well as when disambiguation is used for preventing article title collisions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to raise a question about current naming of national sports teams. Teams are usually named according to the following formula: County national sport team eg Canada national baseball team, Canada national rugby union team, Canada national bandy team, Canada national cricket team, and so on. It's also possible to insert "men's" or "women's" into the titles as appropriate eg Canada national men's basketball team, Canada national women's soccer team. However the default name predominantly either contains the men's team, or directs to the men's team. To take a selected sample, based upon templates at Category:National teams navigational boxes:
Team type | Ungendered name | "Men's national team" | "Women's national team" | Some other name |
---|---|---|---|---|
Canada | ||||
Men's teams | 8 | 14 | 3 | |
Women's teams | 1 | 19 | 4 | |
Mixed gender | 2 | 1 | ||
England | ||||
Men's teams | 8 | 5 | ||
Women's teams | 1 | 10 | ||
Mixed gender | 3 | |||
Brazil | ||||
Men's teams | 14 | 3 | 1 | |
Women's teams | 12 | 1 | ||
Mixed gender | ||||
Japan | ||||
Men's teams | 15 | 6 | 1 | |
Women's teams | 13 | 1 | ||
Mixed gender | 1 | |||
Kenya | ||||
Men's teams | 6 | |||
Women's teams | 4 | |||
Mixed gender | 1 | |||
Totals | ||||
Men's teams | 51 | 28 | 5 | |
Women's teams | 2 | 58 | 6 | |
Mixed gender | 7 | 1 |
There's a clear tendency here - in most sports, the standard practice is to use the ungendered name to refer to the male team, and the gender specific name to refer to the female team eg England national football team/ England national women's football team. Voleyball and Water Polo seem to consistently buck this trend as always specifying men's/women's. Other sports show some variation.
I understand that in many of these instances, the reasoning behind the male team being at the ungendered name is that that is the most recognized WP:COMMONAME. Indeed, the policy does clearly state that non-neutral common names are fine as article titles. To some extent, what I'm not looking for here is a discussion of whether a mass name change would fit current policies. Rather, Wikipedia has a problem with its meta:Gender gap. It is meant to be accessible and editable by all, and it is fairly well established that these small differences replicate and reemphasize Wikipedia's gender problems. I'm therefore tentatively suggesting that we should encourage a move of all national sports teams to "men's national sport team" or "women's national sports team" unless the other gender does not have an article title (or the team takes another name eg Davis Cup and Fed Cup teams). However, I might just be a pinko lefty feminist whose views are out of touch with the majority of Wikipedians - the encyclopedia works by consensus and this isn't a trouble for others: well at least I've pointed it out. I think that this merits consideration and would urge you to consider that this is a simple change that could contribute in a small way to overcoming one of Wikipedia's major biases. Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 08:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Use commonly recognizable names. Where it is predominantly a female sport then the default tends to be to the female teams without gender eg List of national netball teams and List of netball players ( Super Nintendo Chalmers see Canada national netball team and England national netball team) Where there is a genuine split in the commonly recognisable name then there is a dab page eg England national field hockey team. Where there are not enough players to make up a team ( England national ice hockey team) who cares! -- PBS ( talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I would note that NPOV in this instance would lean toward a COMMONNAME argument rather than SYSTEMICBIAS." Can you please indicate the policy content that you consider to support this?
In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. .... The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. ... Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue ..."
Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Both men and women may have a foobar team and, in cases where prevalence of use is not clear, SYSTEMICBIAS should carry. Greg Kaye 10:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Why can't the four shortcuts for the section " Use commonly recognizable names" redirect directly to the section? Every time I use these shortcuts they redirect to the top of the page. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 14:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
At present, at my reading, the content at WP:POVNAME/ WP:NPOVNAME focuses on the differentiation between justified and unjustified, arguably, negatively presented titles with examples being presented as Boston Massacre and the Teapot Dome scandal.
This policy exists on the view that, "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy
" and I think that it is fair to consider that POVs may exist in two directions.
Arguably, one of the most controversial titles in Wikipedia has been
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which, as far as
WP:OFFICIALNAME is concerned, was changed to "Islamic State
".
I think that this pretty much summaries the issues of controversy and also think that it is reasonable to associate the usage of the name with the, I would argue, POV claim of being the state for all Islam and that the claim regarding being a state comes in the context of a claim that "The legality of all ... (internationally recognised, existing) states, ... becomes null.
"
Comments in opposition to article name change by other editors in recent RMs have included:
An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
, "Islamic state" refers to a general type of state that is Islamic. The present natural disambiguation ensures that the title is both unambiguous, neutral, common, and suitable for an encyclopaedic register."
"Islamic State" is worse than POV/advocacy, it is incorrect. There is no such Islamic State. Move to DAESH instead."
Perhaps there are other examples but I personally think that it is fairly argued that the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"/"Islamic State" titling can be debated within the same context as other titles in POVNAME.
I am unsure what changes, if any, should be made to the actual project page text but wanted to flag up the issue, of their being two sides of neutrality, up for discussion. Greg Kaye 07:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Conflicts ... arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy." Remarkably editors at Talk:ISIL have objected to the application of potential NPOV issues and of the mention of WP:POVNAME as they claim, on the basis of wording, that POVNAME does not apply. As such it is presented that alleged NPOV issues cannot be considered in regard to the establishment of consensus. My contention remains that POVNAME presents policy from just one perspective. Greg Kaye 13:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar Re: "so what?
"
Please note the context presented above, "Remarkably editors at Talk:ISIL have objected to the application of potential NPOV issues and of the mention of WP:POVNAME as they claim, on the basis of wording, that POVNAME does not apply.
"
Please also note that I wasn't actually proposing article content changes but wrote, "I am unsure what changes, if any, should be made to the actual project page text but wanted to flag up the issue, of their being two sides of neutrality, up for discussion.
"
Thank you for finally expressing any form of acknowledgement along the lines of "Of course POV can exist in two directions
".
Sometimes it feels like it would be easier to extract teeth than to engage in discussion here.
Greg Kaye 03:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Conflicts ... arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy." These conflicts are handled within the talk pages of the articles concerned where all issues should be relevantly considered. You have not contributed to any of the RM discussions at Talk:ISIL and, with the exception to a one time edit where you supported a moratorium on page moves, have not contributed with signed comment on the page and I am unsure regarding the extent to which you have gone in considering the relevant issues. All the same you will be welcome to join any such discussion should it ever come up. I am happy to engage in a discussion here for the sake of weighing any issues regarding the naming of the specific article naming but I really just wanted to confirm that both sides of an argument could be considered.
Re this edit, it may be noted that Charles Darwin's full name was Charles Robert Darwin, distinguishing him from his little-known [deceased] uncle Charles Darwin, but he's generally known as Charles Darwin and his biographers use the intials CD. Don't know if this helps as an example or not. . . dave souza, talk 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Another way of handling things might be to, in some way, incorporate mention of the <First name> <Last name> convention.
Possible options for this could include: * Nelson Mandela, Charles Darwin, Margaret Thatcher, David Beckham, Thomas Edison or Justin Bieber." An extremely wide range of other examples could also be used but I think we would benefit from presenting something that is more representative of the naming conventions policy. Greg Kaye 09:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@ GregKaye: please keep to the closer's comment at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Common name people - removing (the) pulp?. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Can we please, please, please have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this, PLEASE. Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see,
Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see,". None of this makes any sense to me. Yes I am frustrated with what genuinely seems to be nonsense but will warmly welcome explanation. If editors cannot do this it would be better if they were not involved at all. Greg Kaye 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)desperatelyill-informed objections
so important". I think that it would be of benefit to the content to have a further <First name> <Last name> example. As said "
AGAIN The second paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) begins: "" and I think that it would be of benefit to "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher."
have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this"
How will providing one help explain the concept of COMMONNAME?" It doesn't. I personally think that WP:COMMONNAME is one of the most basic and simple concepts within Wikipedia and, at an extreme, perhaps no examples are needed to help to explain the concept. However, examples are given and they tend to be examples of exceptional situations all used to explain "commonname". How many people do you personally know who aren't primarily recognizable and definable according to a <First name> <Last name> format? What proportion of the people you know are known by names incorporating a middle initial or middle name? I don't know any. How many people do you know that are known nicknames? On a social basis I don't even know the real names of my friends "Moose" and "Scully" but they still constitute only a small proportion of the people I know. We live in a real world and people are primarily known according to the <First name> <Last name> designation format. That's just how it works at least in locations other than Wikipedia.
Charles Darwin" is, in addition to commonname concerns, "
a disambiguation issue (and specifically a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue)" but surely, simultaneous to primary topic being assigned to Mr, Darwin, Charles, how can it be that "
the choice of "Charles Darwin" vs "Charles Robert Darwin" is not a WP:COMMONNAME issue"? Greg Kaye 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
COMMONNAME says to use the most commonly recognizable name. PRIMARYTOPIC has to do with the most common usage of a name, term, etc. "Charles Darwin" would be both; most people searching for the string would not expect to get his uncle, and wouldn't recognize Darwin's name if we added his (theoretical) middle name. The choice therefore, is not a naming issue. You're swinging off into semantic minutiae here, to the point where the argument is losing clarity. Also, most people are known as "first, last" only in English, so their proper names might be reversed, as in Japanese or Korean. Therefore, "common usage" could go either way, and so we make sure to give the characters and romanization in native order as well. Similarly, if someone has a middle name no one really knows, it's not really common, though it would be legal. That's why Lord Dunsany redirects, as does Edward Plunkett, though Dunsany's legal name and title is "Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany" MSJapan ( talk) 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). Three Mononyms and three debatable <first name> <last name> examples is not balanced. Do you disagree? Greg Kaye 06:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Project page content at WP:CRITERIA currently presents:
I propose that the change be made so that the "Conciseness" content to read:
for someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject areato identify the article's subject and
todistinguish it from other subjects.
I think it is will help clarify the guideline if we try to clarify the extent of the people we are trying to help.
I also think that the proposed insertion of "to
" (in: "and to
distinguish it from other subjects") is of use so as to ensure that the identification of a article's subject can be better addressed as a stand alone issue and not merely a subsidiary part of the process of differentiation process of one subject title from another.
As a supplementary thought I also think that (if possible) it might be worth clarifying an interpretation of "subject area
" as I think that this may potentially be considered by different editors at any of a number of different tiers of specialisation.
All the same I still find the "no longer than necessary
" wording to be extremely dubious.
Our project page content
asserts that "it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as
Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from
other uses of the term "Queen"
" while Britannica, as just one of many examples, more descriptively presents
Queen (British rock group)
Greg
Kaye 09:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
to make the individual criteria "look more like one another"" but for Conciseness to be self explanatory and to say directly how it is meant to practically apply.
Five is the number and it is workable", to have any relevance here? I ask this in context that you have just accused me of "rambling" at WT:Disambiguation.
fundamental misunderstanding of how WP:CRITERIA works"
to make the individual criteria "look more like one another""
so that, ultimately, their number can be reduced."
Encyclopedia Britannica presents an article titling as Queen (British rock group) and, especially within this context, I think that text at WP:AT#Disambiguation to be both unnecessarily prescriptive and bordering on slander.
This text currently states:
... According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"..."
Seeing that the current section of text is entitled "disambiguation", the reference to "necessary" is most logically read to say "... use only as much additional detail as necessary (for disambiguation)" but this, as far as I can see, is in direct contradiction to examples that have only just been given in the earlier text. We had only just been shown that acceptable titles can include: Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) even though titles such as Leeds North West and M-185 would, on there own, not be ambiguous.
Ironically the instruction "use only as much additional detail as necessary
" is, itself, ambiguous.
As far as the second sentence is concerned I would prefer to present something like:
For example, it may be considered inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)" when Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"."
Greg Kaye 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
... it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band)..." despite the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica clearly presents: Queen (British rock group)
(still) don't seem to understand why the guideline on wp says "use only as much additional detail as necessary"". Please do not dogmatically assert that you are right before even entering into debate.
use only as much".additionaldetail as will practically help readers identify the subject
helpful to editors" than my begrudging proposed text? "
Helpful" in what way?
.. (English rock band)" please see Ngrams on: British rock band,British rock group,English rock band,English rock group [4]
Proposing to remove the following sentence from the first paragraph of the section on disambiguation:
For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen".
Rationale: the example is redundant at that point: the paragraphs explaining disambiguated article title formats contain enough examples and clarifications to illustrate how the principle is applied. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Only in the sense of its usage here" but when you present this as "
on this specific website" I am increasingly viewing this as on "planet Wikipedia". The vast majority of the titles on topics presented by other sources provide far more topic relevant information than out, I think, comparatively impoverished titling. On top of that we present self convincing and potentially brainwashing assertions such as that it is "
it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)"". Why? Why is it inappropriate. At the very least (and while I recognise that this is not an article) this fails WP:CITE. An absolute is being claimed as if to say that it was normal behaviour. It is not. Few organisations follow a minimalist titling policy such as we follow even when the organisation has a specialism in types of content presented which, in itself, provides a context.
VQuakr The Sisyphean comment is quite humorous but, while I do not deny there being a boulder, why should there be a hill? Policy makes these absolutist, unreferenced and self justifying claims so as to portray Wikipedian ways as being the way that things are done. Greg Kaye 02:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
For example, there is no requirement for the sake of disambiguation to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"..."
The following passage was cited in a discussion above.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
As redirects are essentially alternate titles for search purposes, this statement is misleading and can confuse move discussions, and should be changed to:
Naturalness – The title is one that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
Any objection, and why? ― Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
redirect titles that aren't present in the article, so your example is irrelevant. Of course there are other information sources, but here we should be working together to promote Wikipedia. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
One reason for the wording about editors is to do with the problems unique names which have bee saved under articles with longer names which would usually be used for disambiguation. An example that came up on this page was St Botolph's Church ( Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34#hopelessly vague title). If one linked to the natural name "St Botolph's Church" it was to a red link. So editors not unreasonably concluded that an article did not exist. In fact several St Botolph's Church articles existed at the time, one of which may have been the correct one. The point is that if someone wants writes an article on "St Botolph's Church" and one already exists then they have a choice of a hatnote or a disambiguation page, and everyone can then navigate to the appropriate article if it has been written. The reason why pre-emptive disambiguation is problematic, is because what is an obvious extension to the natural name for one editor may not be obvious to another (particularly if they are relatively new to Wikipedia, or they are writing an article which belongs to a project that has a disambiguation rule, but the editor is unaware that such a project exists, or that this new article falls under the remit of that project. Keeping the "editors would naturally use to link to..." helps reduce theses sorts of problems. -- PBS ( talk) 10:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
"Precision", "Conciseness" do not really cover this in the same way. For example "Naturalness" helps explain and justify " WP:USPLACE". It is quite common for Americans to describe places by name, location, it is far less common for Brits to do the same thing. A name like Birmingham, Alabama is not uncommon usage in American English and is "natural", Birmingham, West Midlands? Birmingham, England? Birmingham, United Kingdom? are all little used in British English. Another similar example is Cambridge and Cambridge, Massachusetts. -- PBS ( talk) 11:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
John Bacon clergyman" or "
John Bacon legislator" or with synonyms of the search terms presented.
Naturalness (which, quite ironically, often pulls in the reverse direction of WP:NATURAL)– Yeah, we do still need to revisit that did-not-agree-on-a-consensus-direction mess of counter-proposals about this stuff from a month or two ago. @ Francis Schonken:. Maybe its time to try again; I think most of the conflict was between your approach to the question and mine, on how to make better sense in the WP:AT#DAB section, and I'll endeavor to try to find common ground if you will. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or doesn't this look like an auto-canvassing system for wikiprojects to have undue influence over " their" article titles?: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Increasing participation in RM discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
East-Asian, Vietnamese, Hungarian, and various African tribal names often use the surname first, and the personal name last, on Wikipedia this seems to be really, really inconsistent in articles preferring it one way in one article and another in another article, for example in the article Tanaka Chigaku the family name Tanaka (田中) is used before the personal name, but in the article Kakuei Tanaka it's styled the opposite, can we just please have one standard? -- Hoang the Hoangest ( talk) 07:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The point being, either we need to say AT policy means something, or that it doesn't. Not that it means something when this camp wants it to, but when some other camp wants to make up their own guidelines then policy no longer applies. And after we decide (obviously) that policy means something, we need to settle on what it means, in what priority order. Is it common name in recent English mainstream sources? Subject preference? Common name across all English sources ever? Common name in specialist sources that are less than 10 years old, except as overridden by subject preference? Most recognizable name world-wide? Or what? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Normally I would post this question at WT:NCCAT, but that talk page doesn't get much activity, so...I have noticed that there is Category:TLC (TV network) programs, but then there is also Category:Lifetime (TV network) shows. Which one should it be? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Gangsta. and similar has recently often been citing the misleading advice given at WP:SMALLDETAILS: @Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours." ... but this advice is patently not what en.wp does. Generally small details like . ! or an umlaut are usually not considered recognizable or distinctive because they aren't used consistently in WP:RS, --- such as Shakira (album) and Janet (album), while Airplane and Airplane! are giant visible exceptions in the same way that Friends and Windows are giant visible exceptions to our plurals titling practice. I know that there are a couple of shortest-title-at-all-cost activists on this page who are dead set against titles being recognizable. But I hope most of the editors here have enough common sense to know that a dot is not a good way of disambiguating Gangsta from Gangsta other topics. As other . examples have shown. Can we please introduce examples of majority cases into WP:SMALLDETAILS ahead of the minority famous exceptions? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As said before, the problems with WP:SMALLDETAILS result from when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) was folded into the WP:AT policy some years ago. The "summary" of that guideline, as kept in WP:AT, largely missed the point, at least it missed the needed nuance. So I've unfolded Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (again), and added a boilerplate to that guidance in the SMALLDETAILS section. If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As one of the people most involved with WP:SMALLDETAILS... honestly, yes, I think a period is so easy to miss, people could get confused. That does lead to the somewhat nonsensical situation where Gangsta. would of course redirect to Gangsta. (manga), which makes no sense, either. I would support a simple exception to WP:SMALLDETAILS that excludes periods from the policy simply because they're too small to see, but I would strongly oppose the general application of that exception to other differentiators, like in Airplane!. Red Slash 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
One thing I want to point out is that 'could' does not necessarily mean 'should'. Small details can be used to disambiguate article titles, but it does not mean that it is encouraged. I think it would be better to explicitly state whether using small details for natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation or other forms of disambiguation that involves using longer titles. This alone would solve many problems. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline be restored or remain the redirect it has been for most of the time since 30 October 2009? most recently restored version -- PBS ( talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
History of the redirect and restoration
-- PBS ( talk) 09:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Before I support or oppose (I'm on the fence due to past vs present guideline precedence), I'm wondering what the hubbub is about. We have innumerable essays. And we have many many guidelines which are essentially better explanatory pages of a section of a policy. WP:PRECISION was its own page a long time. And the merging of this and other pages apparently ended up being an arbcom case where sanctions were added. So basically, my question is this: why is this important? This "feels" like a POV is being pushed here. What's the issue? Are we really debating whether it's better to have a single but lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages? I'm asking just so it's clear. - jc37 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
But I agree with Francis Schonken that it's not about that. It is about "lengthy policy page PLUS one (redundant and possibly conflicting) shorter guideline page", and I definitely oppose that, and Francis explains why everyone should. Unless I'm misunderstanding, Francis is saying he disagrees with what this page says, agrees with what the separate page says, can't get consensus to include that in this page, so wants to get it by restoring the separate guideline. Now, I don't understand or remember what exactly it is that Francis thinks is so important on that page that should be in policy (I don't know what the "the Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem/ Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem principle" is, much less what current policy doesn't say about that but should), but I definitely think the way to get it (or anything else about the criteria), is through consensus building on this talk page, and eventually incorporating it on this policy page. Simply reverting a longstanding redirect back to the page that has what someone likes strikes me as an end-run around the consensus-building process. -- В²C ☎ 20:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
A couple things. First, there are a LOT of naming conventions/article title pages. This is merely one. That said, this is a rather important one, and I could see why we would want it merged to a central page. Now if there is more to the policy than what is wanted on that main page, then, per
summary style, we spit the excess to a separate page. And on the converse, if the entirety of the page should be merged to the central page, that can be done too. That's all merely a matter of format.
But I get the impression when I read the above that there is a question of content of the policy.
So what's the over-riding concern? - jc37 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are referring to when you say, "not an arcane solution". What is not an arcane solution? That sentence is missing a subject and I, for one, cannot glean from the context to what you are referring.
As to the argument that in a situation where multiple meanings are "far more likely to be searched for" that the principle should apply, that makes no sense. That's always the case when there are multiple meanings. It would mean even Oliver! (and countless titles like it), because of all the other uses listed at Oliver and Oliver (surname), could not be a title. The de facto naming convention, manifested in how articles like Oliver! are actually titled, demonstrates that such an interpretation is contrary to consensus. -- В²C ☎ 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are looking for the ultimate policy statement that "allows" a title (any title)... it is this: ...editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. This statement should probably be moved up to the top of the page, as it is what lies behind the rest of the Policy... Article titles are chosen by consensus (a consensus that should be based on discussing issues like Recognizability, Precision, Naturalness, etc.). As long as there is a consensus for it... any title is allowed. Blueboar ( talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Good question:
Always keep in mind that the WP:AT policy is about article titles (not about explaining disambiguation techniques, for which there is a separate guideline), so technically, in fact, the third option described above (the renaming) is the only one that really belongs in the WP:AT policy, what is said about the other disambiguation techniques should be kept short. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's begin with replacing the convoluted second paragraph, depending on a hypothetical example...
This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other. For instance, an album entitled JESUS would probably have its article located at JESUS (album), with JESUS continuing to be a redirect to Jesus. If the album or other possible uses were deemed by editors to be reasonably likely search results for "JESUS", consensus among editors would determine whether or not JESUS would be the location for the album article, a redirect to Jesus, a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the existing disambiguation page Jesus (disambiguation).
... by something more practical & tangible:
When this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the section currently ends with:
... Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases.
I can't think of a single example for that: does it still have any use? Would support removing that from the policy. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
To Francis Schonken and to all of you:
WP:DIFFCAPS has several different parts that each reflect different move discussions that ended in consensuses. Obviously consensus can change, but until it does, I would assert that this policy should not see a significant change.
I hope this better explains why DIFFCAPS is the way it is. This does not mean that it cannot or should not be changed. But since you wanted to know what was going on, I thought I'd explain. Red Slash 03:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no clear-cut discussion that I remember leading to punctuation being a valid distinguisher, but neither Oklahoma! nor Airplane! have ever had a move seriously suggested.– see Talk:Yahoo!/Archive 1#Requested move, which was well-attended. A later attempt to undo this went nowhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Any time you have a strong local-consensus win against policy when the only reason to oppose that consensus was only because it went against policy (and not because of some actual legitimate reason), the policy should be updated.– If only this were still practical. As WP becomes more and more bureaucratic, this happens less and less, because a) people are more apt to rigidly apply existing policies/guidelines, both as commenters and closers, and b) various policy and guideline pages are increasingly WP:OWNed by particular individuals or tagteams who fight like their lives depended on it to prevent such additions. It's a general problem across the whole project. That said, going back to a totally easygoing model would have its downside: The WP:Specialized-style fallacy would make a raging comeback under such a regime, with vote-stacked polls being declared "local consensuses", and opposition to them on the general-audience-encyclopedia grounds and mainstream RS usage would be wrongly dismissed as "no legitimate reason, but just because it goes against policy". I'm not really sure how we regain a balance, in which exceptions with genuine consensus do get integrated into policy where needed, yet rampant exceptionalism doesn't ensue. In the interim, it's presently extremely difficult to get a legitimate variant worked in, and some would like to see many long-extant particular cases removed from the rules (not just at AT; this applies all over). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's say all articles were not at meaningful titles, but at computer generated ones. So the title of the article for Paris was, say, RSD1573 and the article for Paris, Texas the city was RSD1574 and the article for the film Paris, Texas was RSD1575. Now, Paris and Paris, France would redirect to RSD1573, Paris, Texas would redirect to RSD1574 and Paris, Texas (film) would redirect to RSD1575. I submit everything would work fine. That is, users would find the same articles that they find with today's layout, Google would sort the results the same way it does today, etc. The only thing that would differ would be that the title displayed at the article would not be meaningful, but there would be a meaningful name in bold at the start of the article so, practically, that wouldn't be an issue either.
So if everything can work fine if titles are totally meaningless, why, exactly, is it a problem if titles differ by only a small detail, like capitalization or punctuation? Please explain. -- В²C ☎ 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Noting that:
Wikipedia should probably stop respecting the Japanese period in translations to English, both in running text and in titles. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced ... unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject." (emphasis mine). G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm very late to this discussion, but for my two cents worth I am generally against WP:MINORDETAILS, WP:DIFFCAPS etc. and I would favour a move towards a policy or guideline that says we should use disambiguation pages in such cases. Some may regard it as a dumbing down of standards, but the modern trend is towards case insensitivity, not away from it. For practical purposes Jesus, Jesus, and JESUS should be regarded as interchangeable. Similarly V. and V are the same thing. Google searches are always case insensitive (there isn't even a way to make them case sensitive in the advanced options). Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 10:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph added to the policy page:
Using specialized spelling, punctuation or capitalization can also be used for natural disambiguation, even if the trademarked spelling is not the most natural or commonly used name.
This example, contained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, contradicts this, so the proposed addition, besides other flaws, is not suitable policy content. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "victory boasting" is a fair way to describe the situation. Nonetheless, I've reverted Red Slash's edit again. I'm not sure if the consensus supports the idea that the deadmau5 move was sufficiently game-changing to be a prime reason to alter policy about article titles. It might be, but I would like to see more people weigh in to the discussion here. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Further guidance:
In order to avoid redundancy (that may lead to forking of the relevant guidance) I'd replace the end of the first paragraph of the "Standard English and trademarks" section:
(...) ; however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.
by:
(...) . On using minor typographical differences, like a different capitalization, to distinguish article topics see above #When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic.
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion at Gangsta. on moving it to Gangsta (manga) per precedent at Janet. > Janet (album) and Shakira. > Shakira (album).
Since a quick read of WP:AT does not appear to support the move (which IMO seems common sensical: I can't see how a period makes an intelligible dab), and since there are comments that WP:AT might should be modified to reflect the consensus arrived at the move discussion, I thought editors of WP:AT should either chime in or close the move request. — kwami ( talk) 19:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd propose to change the current section title:
to:
Rationale: minor details are not in all circumstances a technique to "naturally disambiguate", and this is partly the reason why the current policy guidance is so confusing, leading to such contradictory statements as "WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply while we're talking about a small difference" and the like (see above). The section should provide guidance when a "smalldetails" issue arrises, and not limit the possible solutions to such issues via the section title to "only" natural disambiguation (which is often not the way this is handled, e.g. P!nk being renamed to a page with a parenthical disambiguator). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Currently the first paragraph of the section reads:
Titles of distinct articles may differ only in small details. Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so appropriate hatnotes with links to the other article(s) and disambiguation pages are strongly advised.
I'd replace that by something in this vein:
Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, e.g. Red meat vs. Red Meat, or Friendly fire vs. the meanings of Friendly Fire listed at Friendly Fire (disambiguation). The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be intending, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours.
And let the next paragraph start with "However, when..." instead of "When...". The rationale for this proposed update is above in #What it is exactly that is important to capture from the guideline, I think this covers the last points I consider essential to recover from the former guideline. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That I can get behind. Red Slash 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This sentence is awkward:
I propose changing it to:
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
We need a statement at DIFFPUNCT that if a title suffices under that section of the policy, it is not to be subjected to redundant disambiguation measures except in the case of an exact name collision. E.g. Yahoo! is not to be changed to Yahoo! (company) unless there are other things exactly named "Yahoo!", e.g. Yahoo! (novel), Yahoo! (film), etc., and Yahoo! (the company) is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. People are genuinely confused about this, as evidenced at WP:Move review/Log/2015 August#Gangsta (manga) and the lead-up RM at (presently) Talk:Gangsta (manga). Either DIFFPUNCT permits the title of this article to be Gangsta., since independent, reliable sources do correctly give its actual title Gangsta., and do so quite consistently (thus satisfying both WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME simultaneously); or this somehow fails DIFFPUNCT, and WP:AT#PARENDIS applies and this should be at Gangsta (manga), in accord with MOS:TM. There is no provision anywhere for going both conflicting directions at the same time and coming up with a pointless "double-DAB" like Gangsta. (manga), unless and until such time as there are Gangsta. (film), Gangsta. (TV series), etc., and Gangsta. (the manga) is not the primary topic.
Several people are simply not getting it, which suggests that we have a lack of policy clarity here. (The sorta-rationale for this view appears to be "mobile users might not notice the .
". But being a mobile user, and even one with crappy eyesight, I don't have any trouble seeing this character on my device; if I did, I would make the font size bigger on my device so I could read properly, like anyone else would.)
Proposed addition: Do not mix typographic distinction with
disambiguation (e.g. parenthetic), unless two or more topics are vying for the same distinct title and the article in question is not the
primary topic.
This would be on a line by itself, between the Passio example and "Plural forms may ...", near the bottom of the section.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
current guidance allows bothis what I just said and what we'd be clarifying. People are being confused into thinking that neither Gangsta. nor Gangsta (manga) should be used, but that we should use Gansgta. (manga), instead. In reality, the policy does not support that at all (absent multiple subjects vying for the title "Gangsta." with a dot, but people are obviously not getting it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: There is no provision anywhere for going both conflicting directions at the same time and coming up with a pointless "double-DAB" - actually there is... the second sentence of WP:CRITERIA states: "There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains." Combine that with the first sentence after the list of criteria, (which reads: These should be seen as goals, not as rules) and it becomes clear that article titles are chosen by flexible consensus, not an inflexible set of "rules". We are allowed to think outside the box.
Now, as Francis has pointed out, there isn't a consensus to use a "double-DAB" in this case. So there is no need to panic. My point is simply that the policy does allow us to at least consider a "double-DAB" as an option.
Blueboar (
talk) 12:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The opening para at Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names currently reads:
Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." (emphasis added).
The proposal here is for the text to read:
Names are often used in article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
or, preferably, to read:
Names are often used in article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some subjects featured in article contents have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
I know that the wording starts "Names are often used ...
" but I think that the proposed text fits better regarding the application of UCRN to such titles as are given within wide ranging contents including, for example, Wikipedia's many articles whose titles begin
"List of ...".
A similarly minor edit to WP:CRITERIA could involve a change from:
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
to:
Recognizability – The title presents a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
Greg Kaye 12:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
the most commonly used term for this subject (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) ..." Take a look at the Ngrams for: I speak English,I speak the English language,you speak English,you speak the English language,they speak English,they speak the English language. "English" is what English is most commonly called in English.
about dictating the outcomes of ... RMs"? It literally states, "
Names are often used as article titles ... and ... Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". In practical effect this prescribes that we should use British White rather than British White cattle; English rather than English language; Princess Diana rather than Diana, Princess of Wales; E.T. rather than E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial etc. In such cases I do not think that editors should be faced with prescriptive policy content but should be free to make which ever choice that may best meet readers' needs.
Names are often not used as article titles" as in the many "List of - content extent qualifier - Foo - qualifier" articles such as List of most common surnames in Asia and List of most consecutive games with touchdown passes in the National Football League and similar contents. Clearly in many cases the mention of "
... often ..." in the existing policy wording is open to interpretation so as to mean all title contents other than "List of ..." and similarly formatted titles.
... as ..." wording is prescriptive while the "
... in ..." wording is open. The wording "
... as or in ..." could also work. The prescriptive "... as ..." wording, on its own, does not leave options as open as it could. I think that it would be better for policy to leave editors free to determine for themselves the best reader friendly / subject representational title for each article. Greg Kaye 05:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Names are often used as article titles"- This is a statement of fact... Names are often used as article titles. I would say that over 80% of the titles in Wikipedia are names. However, note that it says "often" and not "always". It is not dictating that names must be used - or even that they should be used... it is simply noting that they are often used. Of course, sometimes, the topic does not have a "name", and a descriptive phrase is used ( History of timekeeping devices for example)... and in a few rare cases a name may exist, but consensus believes that a descriptive title is better... but in probably 80% or more of our articles the title is simply the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. That is simple fact.
Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". This is closer to a dictate... but it is followed by a whole bunch of caveats and exceptions that we have to take into consideration. Also, note that it says "prefers" not "requires". It's not a demand.
These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.
Amphetamines or substituted amphetamines?
There is the drug amphetamine which belongs to the drug class commonly called the amphetamines, which includes amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy (MDMA), DOM and other amphetamine derivatives, some used medically and many recreationally. Because of the ambiguity between amphetamine and the amphetamines prior editors chose to use substituted amphetamines for the drug class. Technically it is not an incorrect term but it presents issues that bother me. Substituted amphetamines is not commonly used but when it is used, it is overwhelmingly used to refer to ecstasy and similar psychedelic amphetamines and methamphetamine. This creates a difficult issue.
Indeed substituted amphetamines may disambiguate from amphetamine the drug here at Wikipedia. But the term suggests amphetamine derivatives, it is commonly used regarding amphetamine derivatives but rarely about amphetamine itself. This is true not only on Google but search engines of scientific/medical literature like PubMed. (Google results where substituted amphetamines conforms to Wikpedia usage overwhelmingly are Wikipedia & Wiki related sites and those copying content from Wikipedia & Wiki related sites.) We do not say substituted benzodiazepines nor substituted barbiturates so the substituted element suggests derivatives. Solving one ambiguity is creating another. Amphetamines may be confused with amphetamine itself, but substituted amphetamines may be confused with all but amphetamine itself. Continually defining what either term means is not desirable yet defining it once or twice invites confusion if one lands in another section or doesn't read carefully.
Policies directing editors to choose a less common name to resolve ambiguity may be used to defend substituted amphetamines, but do not consider names that are much much less common and moreover present confusion moving outside of Wikipedia or with common usage. Imagine a student researching amphetamines starting at Wikipedia, learning the proper term is substituted amphetamines, moving beyond Wikipedia now looking for substituted amphetamines and finding material almost exclusively about designer drugs and methamphetamine. Now we have indeed distinguished amphetamine and amphetamines to the exclusion of the former--which is a lead character in the drug class.
Perhaps "the" would better substitute for the substituted in substituted amphetamines. Sorry, let me try again: I wonder if "the amphetamines" solves the dilemma? Box73 ( talk) 11:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Bruce Jenner was unilaterally moved to Caitlyn_Jenner. There was an RM to move it back (now archived), which was closed per SNOW within hours. I seem to be the only one concerned about what appears to me to be a blatant disregard for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AT, but if no one else is concerned I'm not going to push it. -- В²C ☎ 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be good to update AT with the changes to WP:MOSIDENTITY for consistency. -- haminoon ( talk) 22:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VQuakr it is interesting that you write "If we are conflating essays with policy now" yet above you have conflated an unrelated guideline with the article titles policy when you wrote " MOS:IDENTITY supports the move". It does not. The MOS section to which MOS:IDENTITY links states "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by .... (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article)". The change of name of the subject of an article is covered by a sentence in the article title policy section " Use commonly recognizable names": "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". -- PBS ( talk) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
We had a discussion on the talk page of Death of Sandra Bland about moving the article to just Sandra Bland Talk:Death_of_Sandra_Bland#Requested_move_1_August_2015. Basically a person may not be notable, but there Murder, Killing, Shooting, Death is. I think we should standardize this and just use the victims name for the article. It's what will be searched for by readers, it lessens our pontificating ("this was a shooting, see refs", "this was a murder, see refs"), and it's just simpler. What I said there was
So here it is. Not sure if this is the right place for this, I'm not very active anymore. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#How to apply "1E" guidelines to murderers. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we should add the subject as part of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. We have seen similar discussions many times, and I don't think consensus would like using just person's name for an article whose subject has very little biographical info and a lot of details related to one event primarily involving a person. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
stuff in green in Early childhood section is about Emmett
|
---|
Emmett Till was the son of Mamie Carthan (1921–2003) and Louis Till (1922–1945). Emmett's mother was born in the small Delta town of Webb, Mississippi. The Delta region encompasses the large, multi-county area of northwestern Mississippi in the watershed of the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers. When Carthan was two years old, her family moved to Argo, Illinois, as part of the Great Migration of black families to the North to escape lack of opportunity and unequal treatment under the law.[3] Argo received so many Southern migrants it was named "Little Mississippi"; Carthan's mother's home was often used as a way station for people who had just moved from the South as they were trying to find jobs and homes. Mississippi was the poorest state in the U.S. in the 1950s, and the Delta counties were some of the poorest in Mississippi.[4] In Tallahatchie County, where Mamie Carthan was born, the average income per household in 1949 was $690 ($6,755 in 2013 dollars); for black families it was $462 ($4,523 in 2013 dollars).[5] Economic opportunities for blacks were almost nonexistent. Most of them were sharecroppers who lived on land owned by whites. Blacks had essentially not been allowed to vote since the white-dominated legislature passed a new constitution in 1890, were excluded from politics, and had very few legal rights. Till was born in Chicago and nicknamed "Bobo" as an infant by a family friend. His mother Mamie largely raised him with her mother; she and Louis Till separated in 1942 after she discovered he had been unfaithful. Louis later choked her to unconsciousness, to which she responded by throwing scalding water at him.[6] For violating court orders to stay away from Mamie, Emmett's father Louis was forced by a judge to choose between jail or enlisting in the U.S. Army in 1943;[7] he was executed in Italy in 1945 after being convicted of rape and murder by a court-martial. At the age of six Emmett contracted polio, leaving him with a persistent stutter.[8] Mamie and Emmett moved to Detroit, where she met and married "Pink" Bradley in 1951. Emmett preferred to live in Chicago, so he relocated to live with his grandmother; his mother and stepfather rejoined him later that year. After the marriage dissolved in 1952, Bradley returned to Detroit.[9] Mamie Till Bradley and Emmett lived alone together in a busy neighborhood in Chicago's South Side, near extended relatives. She began working as a civilian clerk for the U.S. Air Force for a better salary and recalled that Emmett was industrious enough to help with chores at home, although he sometimes got distracted. His mother remembered that he did not know his own limitations at times. Following his and Mamie's separation, Bradley visited and began threatening her. At eleven years old, Emmett, with a butcher knife in hand, told Bradley he would kill him if Bradley did not leave.[10] Usually, however, Emmett was happy. He and his cousins and friends pulled pranks on each other (Emmett once took advantage of an extended car ride when his friend fell asleep and placed the friend's underwear on his head), and spent their free time in pickup baseball games. He was a natty dresser and often the center of attention among his peers.[11] In 1955, Emmett was stocky and muscular, weighing about 150 pounds (68 kg) and standing 5 feet 4 inches (1.63 m). Despite his being only 14 years old, whites in Mississippi claimed Till looked like an adult.[12] Mamie Till Bradley's uncle, 64-year-old Mose Wright, visited her and Emmett in Chicago during the summer and told Emmett stories about living in the Mississippi Delta. Emmett wanted to see for himself. Bradley was ready for a vacation and planned to take Emmett with her, but after he begged her to visit Wright, she relented. Wright planned to accompany Till with a cousin, Wheeler Parker, and another, Curtis Jones, would join them soon. Wright was a sharecropper and part-time minister who was often called "Preacher".[13] He lived in Money, Mississippi, a small town in the Delta that consisted of three stores, a school, a post office, a cotton gin, and a couple hundred residents, 8 miles (13 km) north of Greenwood. Before his departure for the Delta, Till's mother cautioned him that Chicago and Mississippi were two different worlds, and he should know how to behave in front of whites in the South.[14] He assured her he understood.[15] Since 1882, when statistics on lynchings began to be collected, more than 500 African Americans had been killed by extrajudicial violence in Mississippi alone.[16] Most of the incidents took place between 1876 and 1930; though far less common by the mid-1950s, these racially motivated murders still occurred. Throughout the South the racial caste system was predicated by whites upon avoiding interracial relationships and maintaining white supremacy. This did not prevent white men from taking sexual advantage of black women, but was meant to "protect" white women from black men. Even the suggestion of sexual contact between black men and white women carried the most severe penalties for black men. A resurgence of the enforcement of such Jim Crow mores was evident following World War II.[17] Racial tensions increased further after the United States Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education to end segregation in public education. Many segregationists viewed the ruling as an avenue to allow interracial marriage. The reaction among whites in the South was to constrain blacks forcefully from any semblance of social equality.[18] A week before Till arrived, a black man named Lamar Smith was shot in front of the county courthouse in Brookhaven for political organizing. Three white suspects were arrested, but they were soon released.[19] |
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. [emphasis added]
These titles are about explicitly limiting the implied scope of coverage. Wikipedia should not be the original and only publisher of a biography. An article John Doe is interpreted by a reasonable prospective editor as a biography on John Doe, and its existence invites contributions that round out a biography.These pages are titled this way for a very good reason. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC on disamibiguation for clarification on whether WP:DAB should cover use of disambiguation (often WP:NATURAL) for clarifying inherently ambiguous names as well as when disambiguation is used for preventing article title collisions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to raise a question about current naming of national sports teams. Teams are usually named according to the following formula: County national sport team eg Canada national baseball team, Canada national rugby union team, Canada national bandy team, Canada national cricket team, and so on. It's also possible to insert "men's" or "women's" into the titles as appropriate eg Canada national men's basketball team, Canada national women's soccer team. However the default name predominantly either contains the men's team, or directs to the men's team. To take a selected sample, based upon templates at Category:National teams navigational boxes:
Team type | Ungendered name | "Men's national team" | "Women's national team" | Some other name |
---|---|---|---|---|
Canada | ||||
Men's teams | 8 | 14 | 3 | |
Women's teams | 1 | 19 | 4 | |
Mixed gender | 2 | 1 | ||
England | ||||
Men's teams | 8 | 5 | ||
Women's teams | 1 | 10 | ||
Mixed gender | 3 | |||
Brazil | ||||
Men's teams | 14 | 3 | 1 | |
Women's teams | 12 | 1 | ||
Mixed gender | ||||
Japan | ||||
Men's teams | 15 | 6 | 1 | |
Women's teams | 13 | 1 | ||
Mixed gender | 1 | |||
Kenya | ||||
Men's teams | 6 | |||
Women's teams | 4 | |||
Mixed gender | 1 | |||
Totals | ||||
Men's teams | 51 | 28 | 5 | |
Women's teams | 2 | 58 | 6 | |
Mixed gender | 7 | 1 |
There's a clear tendency here - in most sports, the standard practice is to use the ungendered name to refer to the male team, and the gender specific name to refer to the female team eg England national football team/ England national women's football team. Voleyball and Water Polo seem to consistently buck this trend as always specifying men's/women's. Other sports show some variation.
I understand that in many of these instances, the reasoning behind the male team being at the ungendered name is that that is the most recognized WP:COMMONAME. Indeed, the policy does clearly state that non-neutral common names are fine as article titles. To some extent, what I'm not looking for here is a discussion of whether a mass name change would fit current policies. Rather, Wikipedia has a problem with its meta:Gender gap. It is meant to be accessible and editable by all, and it is fairly well established that these small differences replicate and reemphasize Wikipedia's gender problems. I'm therefore tentatively suggesting that we should encourage a move of all national sports teams to "men's national sport team" or "women's national sports team" unless the other gender does not have an article title (or the team takes another name eg Davis Cup and Fed Cup teams). However, I might just be a pinko lefty feminist whose views are out of touch with the majority of Wikipedians - the encyclopedia works by consensus and this isn't a trouble for others: well at least I've pointed it out. I think that this merits consideration and would urge you to consider that this is a simple change that could contribute in a small way to overcoming one of Wikipedia's major biases. Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 08:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Use commonly recognizable names. Where it is predominantly a female sport then the default tends to be to the female teams without gender eg List of national netball teams and List of netball players ( Super Nintendo Chalmers see Canada national netball team and England national netball team) Where there is a genuine split in the commonly recognisable name then there is a dab page eg England national field hockey team. Where there are not enough players to make up a team ( England national ice hockey team) who cares! -- PBS ( talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I would note that NPOV in this instance would lean toward a COMMONNAME argument rather than SYSTEMICBIAS." Can you please indicate the policy content that you consider to support this?
In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. .... The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. ... Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue ..."
Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Both men and women may have a foobar team and, in cases where prevalence of use is not clear, SYSTEMICBIAS should carry. Greg Kaye 10:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Why can't the four shortcuts for the section " Use commonly recognizable names" redirect directly to the section? Every time I use these shortcuts they redirect to the top of the page. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 14:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
At present, at my reading, the content at WP:POVNAME/ WP:NPOVNAME focuses on the differentiation between justified and unjustified, arguably, negatively presented titles with examples being presented as Boston Massacre and the Teapot Dome scandal.
This policy exists on the view that, "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy
" and I think that it is fair to consider that POVs may exist in two directions.
Arguably, one of the most controversial titles in Wikipedia has been
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which, as far as
WP:OFFICIALNAME is concerned, was changed to "Islamic State
".
I think that this pretty much summaries the issues of controversy and also think that it is reasonable to associate the usage of the name with the, I would argue, POV claim of being the state for all Islam and that the claim regarding being a state comes in the context of a claim that "The legality of all ... (internationally recognised, existing) states, ... becomes null.
"
Comments in opposition to article name change by other editors in recent RMs have included:
An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
, "Islamic state" refers to a general type of state that is Islamic. The present natural disambiguation ensures that the title is both unambiguous, neutral, common, and suitable for an encyclopaedic register."
"Islamic State" is worse than POV/advocacy, it is incorrect. There is no such Islamic State. Move to DAESH instead."
Perhaps there are other examples but I personally think that it is fairly argued that the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"/"Islamic State" titling can be debated within the same context as other titles in POVNAME.
I am unsure what changes, if any, should be made to the actual project page text but wanted to flag up the issue, of their being two sides of neutrality, up for discussion. Greg Kaye 07:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Conflicts ... arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy." Remarkably editors at Talk:ISIL have objected to the application of potential NPOV issues and of the mention of WP:POVNAME as they claim, on the basis of wording, that POVNAME does not apply. As such it is presented that alleged NPOV issues cannot be considered in regard to the establishment of consensus. My contention remains that POVNAME presents policy from just one perspective. Greg Kaye 13:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar Re: "so what?
"
Please note the context presented above, "Remarkably editors at Talk:ISIL have objected to the application of potential NPOV issues and of the mention of WP:POVNAME as they claim, on the basis of wording, that POVNAME does not apply.
"
Please also note that I wasn't actually proposing article content changes but wrote, "I am unsure what changes, if any, should be made to the actual project page text but wanted to flag up the issue, of their being two sides of neutrality, up for discussion.
"
Thank you for finally expressing any form of acknowledgement along the lines of "Of course POV can exist in two directions
".
Sometimes it feels like it would be easier to extract teeth than to engage in discussion here.
Greg Kaye 03:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Conflicts ... arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy." These conflicts are handled within the talk pages of the articles concerned where all issues should be relevantly considered. You have not contributed to any of the RM discussions at Talk:ISIL and, with the exception to a one time edit where you supported a moratorium on page moves, have not contributed with signed comment on the page and I am unsure regarding the extent to which you have gone in considering the relevant issues. All the same you will be welcome to join any such discussion should it ever come up. I am happy to engage in a discussion here for the sake of weighing any issues regarding the naming of the specific article naming but I really just wanted to confirm that both sides of an argument could be considered.
Re this edit, it may be noted that Charles Darwin's full name was Charles Robert Darwin, distinguishing him from his little-known [deceased] uncle Charles Darwin, but he's generally known as Charles Darwin and his biographers use the intials CD. Don't know if this helps as an example or not. . . dave souza, talk 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Another way of handling things might be to, in some way, incorporate mention of the <First name> <Last name> convention.
Possible options for this could include: * Nelson Mandela, Charles Darwin, Margaret Thatcher, David Beckham, Thomas Edison or Justin Bieber." An extremely wide range of other examples could also be used but I think we would benefit from presenting something that is more representative of the naming conventions policy. Greg Kaye 09:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@ GregKaye: please keep to the closer's comment at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Common name people - removing (the) pulp?. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." Can we please, please, please have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this, PLEASE. Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see,
Please can you either explain or drop your obtuse and, as far as I can see,". None of this makes any sense to me. Yes I am frustrated with what genuinely seems to be nonsense but will warmly welcome explanation. If editors cannot do this it would be better if they were not involved at all. Greg Kaye 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)desperatelyill-informed objections
so important". I think that it would be of benefit to the content to have a further <First name> <Last name> example. As said "
AGAIN The second paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) begins: "" and I think that it would be of benefit to "Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher."
have a WP:COMMONNAME content that supports this"
How will providing one help explain the concept of COMMONNAME?" It doesn't. I personally think that WP:COMMONNAME is one of the most basic and simple concepts within Wikipedia and, at an extreme, perhaps no examples are needed to help to explain the concept. However, examples are given and they tend to be examples of exceptional situations all used to explain "commonname". How many people do you personally know who aren't primarily recognizable and definable according to a <First name> <Last name> format? What proportion of the people you know are known by names incorporating a middle initial or middle name? I don't know any. How many people do you know that are known nicknames? On a social basis I don't even know the real names of my friends "Moose" and "Scully" but they still constitute only a small proportion of the people I know. We live in a real world and people are primarily known according to the <First name> <Last name> designation format. That's just how it works at least in locations other than Wikipedia.
Charles Darwin" is, in addition to commonname concerns, "
a disambiguation issue (and specifically a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue)" but surely, simultaneous to primary topic being assigned to Mr, Darwin, Charles, how can it be that "
the choice of "Charles Darwin" vs "Charles Robert Darwin" is not a WP:COMMONNAME issue"? Greg Kaye 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
COMMONNAME says to use the most commonly recognizable name. PRIMARYTOPIC has to do with the most common usage of a name, term, etc. "Charles Darwin" would be both; most people searching for the string would not expect to get his uncle, and wouldn't recognize Darwin's name if we added his (theoretical) middle name. The choice therefore, is not a naming issue. You're swinging off into semantic minutiae here, to the point where the argument is losing clarity. Also, most people are known as "first, last" only in English, so their proper names might be reversed, as in Japanese or Korean. Therefore, "common usage" could go either way, and so we make sure to give the characters and romanization in native order as well. Similarly, if someone has a middle name no one really knows, it's not really common, though it would be legal. That's why Lord Dunsany redirects, as does Edward Plunkett, though Dunsany's legal name and title is "Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany" MSJapan ( talk) 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). Three Mononyms and three debatable <first name> <last name> examples is not balanced. Do you disagree? Greg Kaye 06:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Project page content at WP:CRITERIA currently presents:
I propose that the change be made so that the "Conciseness" content to read:
for someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject areato identify the article's subject and
todistinguish it from other subjects.
I think it is will help clarify the guideline if we try to clarify the extent of the people we are trying to help.
I also think that the proposed insertion of "to
" (in: "and to
distinguish it from other subjects") is of use so as to ensure that the identification of a article's subject can be better addressed as a stand alone issue and not merely a subsidiary part of the process of differentiation process of one subject title from another.
As a supplementary thought I also think that (if possible) it might be worth clarifying an interpretation of "subject area
" as I think that this may potentially be considered by different editors at any of a number of different tiers of specialisation.
All the same I still find the "no longer than necessary
" wording to be extremely dubious.
Our project page content
asserts that "it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as
Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from
other uses of the term "Queen"
" while Britannica, as just one of many examples, more descriptively presents
Queen (British rock group)
Greg
Kaye 09:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
to make the individual criteria "look more like one another"" but for Conciseness to be self explanatory and to say directly how it is meant to practically apply.
Five is the number and it is workable", to have any relevance here? I ask this in context that you have just accused me of "rambling" at WT:Disambiguation.
fundamental misunderstanding of how WP:CRITERIA works"
to make the individual criteria "look more like one another""
so that, ultimately, their number can be reduced."
Encyclopedia Britannica presents an article titling as Queen (British rock group) and, especially within this context, I think that text at WP:AT#Disambiguation to be both unnecessarily prescriptive and bordering on slander.
This text currently states:
... According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"..."
Seeing that the current section of text is entitled "disambiguation", the reference to "necessary" is most logically read to say "... use only as much additional detail as necessary (for disambiguation)" but this, as far as I can see, is in direct contradiction to examples that have only just been given in the earlier text. We had only just been shown that acceptable titles can include: Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) even though titles such as Leeds North West and M-185 would, on there own, not be ambiguous.
Ironically the instruction "use only as much additional detail as necessary
" is, itself, ambiguous.
As far as the second sentence is concerned I would prefer to present something like:
For example, it may be considered inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)" when Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"."
Greg Kaye 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
... it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band)..." despite the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica clearly presents: Queen (British rock group)
(still) don't seem to understand why the guideline on wp says "use only as much additional detail as necessary"". Please do not dogmatically assert that you are right before even entering into debate.
use only as much".additionaldetail as will practically help readers identify the subject
helpful to editors" than my begrudging proposed text? "
Helpful" in what way?
.. (English rock band)" please see Ngrams on: British rock band,British rock group,English rock band,English rock group [4]
Proposing to remove the following sentence from the first paragraph of the section on disambiguation:
For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen".
Rationale: the example is redundant at that point: the paragraphs explaining disambiguated article title formats contain enough examples and clarifications to illustrate how the principle is applied. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Only in the sense of its usage here" but when you present this as "
on this specific website" I am increasingly viewing this as on "planet Wikipedia". The vast majority of the titles on topics presented by other sources provide far more topic relevant information than out, I think, comparatively impoverished titling. On top of that we present self convincing and potentially brainwashing assertions such as that it is "
it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)"". Why? Why is it inappropriate. At the very least (and while I recognise that this is not an article) this fails WP:CITE. An absolute is being claimed as if to say that it was normal behaviour. It is not. Few organisations follow a minimalist titling policy such as we follow even when the organisation has a specialism in types of content presented which, in itself, provides a context.
VQuakr The Sisyphean comment is quite humorous but, while I do not deny there being a boulder, why should there be a hill? Policy makes these absolutist, unreferenced and self justifying claims so as to portray Wikipedian ways as being the way that things are done. Greg Kaye 02:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
For example, there is no requirement for the sake of disambiguation to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"..."
The following passage was cited in a discussion above.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
As redirects are essentially alternate titles for search purposes, this statement is misleading and can confuse move discussions, and should be changed to:
Naturalness – The title is one that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
Any objection, and why? ― Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
redirect titles that aren't present in the article, so your example is irrelevant. Of course there are other information sources, but here we should be working together to promote Wikipedia. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
One reason for the wording about editors is to do with the problems unique names which have bee saved under articles with longer names which would usually be used for disambiguation. An example that came up on this page was St Botolph's Church ( Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34#hopelessly vague title). If one linked to the natural name "St Botolph's Church" it was to a red link. So editors not unreasonably concluded that an article did not exist. In fact several St Botolph's Church articles existed at the time, one of which may have been the correct one. The point is that if someone wants writes an article on "St Botolph's Church" and one already exists then they have a choice of a hatnote or a disambiguation page, and everyone can then navigate to the appropriate article if it has been written. The reason why pre-emptive disambiguation is problematic, is because what is an obvious extension to the natural name for one editor may not be obvious to another (particularly if they are relatively new to Wikipedia, or they are writing an article which belongs to a project that has a disambiguation rule, but the editor is unaware that such a project exists, or that this new article falls under the remit of that project. Keeping the "editors would naturally use to link to..." helps reduce theses sorts of problems. -- PBS ( talk) 10:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
"Precision", "Conciseness" do not really cover this in the same way. For example "Naturalness" helps explain and justify " WP:USPLACE". It is quite common for Americans to describe places by name, location, it is far less common for Brits to do the same thing. A name like Birmingham, Alabama is not uncommon usage in American English and is "natural", Birmingham, West Midlands? Birmingham, England? Birmingham, United Kingdom? are all little used in British English. Another similar example is Cambridge and Cambridge, Massachusetts. -- PBS ( talk) 11:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
John Bacon clergyman" or "
John Bacon legislator" or with synonyms of the search terms presented.
Naturalness (which, quite ironically, often pulls in the reverse direction of WP:NATURAL)– Yeah, we do still need to revisit that did-not-agree-on-a-consensus-direction mess of counter-proposals about this stuff from a month or two ago. @ Francis Schonken:. Maybe its time to try again; I think most of the conflict was between your approach to the question and mine, on how to make better sense in the WP:AT#DAB section, and I'll endeavor to try to find common ground if you will. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or doesn't this look like an auto-canvassing system for wikiprojects to have undue influence over " their" article titles?: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Increasing participation in RM discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
East-Asian, Vietnamese, Hungarian, and various African tribal names often use the surname first, and the personal name last, on Wikipedia this seems to be really, really inconsistent in articles preferring it one way in one article and another in another article, for example in the article Tanaka Chigaku the family name Tanaka (田中) is used before the personal name, but in the article Kakuei Tanaka it's styled the opposite, can we just please have one standard? -- Hoang the Hoangest ( talk) 07:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The point being, either we need to say AT policy means something, or that it doesn't. Not that it means something when this camp wants it to, but when some other camp wants to make up their own guidelines then policy no longer applies. And after we decide (obviously) that policy means something, we need to settle on what it means, in what priority order. Is it common name in recent English mainstream sources? Subject preference? Common name across all English sources ever? Common name in specialist sources that are less than 10 years old, except as overridden by subject preference? Most recognizable name world-wide? Or what? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Normally I would post this question at WT:NCCAT, but that talk page doesn't get much activity, so...I have noticed that there is Category:TLC (TV network) programs, but then there is also Category:Lifetime (TV network) shows. Which one should it be? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Gangsta. and similar has recently often been citing the misleading advice given at WP:SMALLDETAILS: @Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours." ... but this advice is patently not what en.wp does. Generally small details like . ! or an umlaut are usually not considered recognizable or distinctive because they aren't used consistently in WP:RS, --- such as Shakira (album) and Janet (album), while Airplane and Airplane! are giant visible exceptions in the same way that Friends and Windows are giant visible exceptions to our plurals titling practice. I know that there are a couple of shortest-title-at-all-cost activists on this page who are dead set against titles being recognizable. But I hope most of the editors here have enough common sense to know that a dot is not a good way of disambiguating Gangsta from Gangsta other topics. As other . examples have shown. Can we please introduce examples of majority cases into WP:SMALLDETAILS ahead of the minority famous exceptions? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As said before, the problems with WP:SMALLDETAILS result from when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) was folded into the WP:AT policy some years ago. The "summary" of that guideline, as kept in WP:AT, largely missed the point, at least it missed the needed nuance. So I've unfolded Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (again), and added a boilerplate to that guidance in the SMALLDETAILS section. If the guideline works better to address the issues mentioned in this section, either please keep the guideline, or see to it that it gets a better summary in WP:AT. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As one of the people most involved with WP:SMALLDETAILS... honestly, yes, I think a period is so easy to miss, people could get confused. That does lead to the somewhat nonsensical situation where Gangsta. would of course redirect to Gangsta. (manga), which makes no sense, either. I would support a simple exception to WP:SMALLDETAILS that excludes periods from the policy simply because they're too small to see, but I would strongly oppose the general application of that exception to other differentiators, like in Airplane!. Red Slash 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
One thing I want to point out is that 'could' does not necessarily mean 'should'. Small details can be used to disambiguate article titles, but it does not mean that it is encouraged. I think it would be better to explicitly state whether using small details for natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation or other forms of disambiguation that involves using longer titles. This alone would solve many problems. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline be restored or remain the redirect it has been for most of the time since 30 October 2009? most recently restored version -- PBS ( talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
History of the redirect and restoration
-- PBS ( talk) 09:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Before I support or oppose (I'm on the fence due to past vs present guideline precedence), I'm wondering what the hubbub is about. We have innumerable essays. And we have many many guidelines which are essentially better explanatory pages of a section of a policy. WP:PRECISION was its own page a long time. And the merging of this and other pages apparently ended up being an arbcom case where sanctions were added. So basically, my question is this: why is this important? This "feels" like a POV is being pushed here. What's the issue? Are we really debating whether it's better to have a single but lengthy policy page or many but shorter policy pages? I'm asking just so it's clear. - jc37 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
But I agree with Francis Schonken that it's not about that. It is about "lengthy policy page PLUS one (redundant and possibly conflicting) shorter guideline page", and I definitely oppose that, and Francis explains why everyone should. Unless I'm misunderstanding, Francis is saying he disagrees with what this page says, agrees with what the separate page says, can't get consensus to include that in this page, so wants to get it by restoring the separate guideline. Now, I don't understand or remember what exactly it is that Francis thinks is so important on that page that should be in policy (I don't know what the "the Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem/ Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem principle" is, much less what current policy doesn't say about that but should), but I definitely think the way to get it (or anything else about the criteria), is through consensus building on this talk page, and eventually incorporating it on this policy page. Simply reverting a longstanding redirect back to the page that has what someone likes strikes me as an end-run around the consensus-building process. -- В²C ☎ 20:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
A couple things. First, there are a LOT of naming conventions/article title pages. This is merely one. That said, this is a rather important one, and I could see why we would want it merged to a central page. Now if there is more to the policy than what is wanted on that main page, then, per
summary style, we spit the excess to a separate page. And on the converse, if the entirety of the page should be merged to the central page, that can be done too. That's all merely a matter of format.
But I get the impression when I read the above that there is a question of content of the policy.
So what's the over-riding concern? - jc37 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are referring to when you say, "not an arcane solution". What is not an arcane solution? That sentence is missing a subject and I, for one, cannot glean from the context to what you are referring.
As to the argument that in a situation where multiple meanings are "far more likely to be searched for" that the principle should apply, that makes no sense. That's always the case when there are multiple meanings. It would mean even Oliver! (and countless titles like it), because of all the other uses listed at Oliver and Oliver (surname), could not be a title. The de facto naming convention, manifested in how articles like Oliver! are actually titled, demonstrates that such an interpretation is contrary to consensus. -- В²C ☎ 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are looking for the ultimate policy statement that "allows" a title (any title)... it is this: ...editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. This statement should probably be moved up to the top of the page, as it is what lies behind the rest of the Policy... Article titles are chosen by consensus (a consensus that should be based on discussing issues like Recognizability, Precision, Naturalness, etc.). As long as there is a consensus for it... any title is allowed. Blueboar ( talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Good question:
Always keep in mind that the WP:AT policy is about article titles (not about explaining disambiguation techniques, for which there is a separate guideline), so technically, in fact, the third option described above (the renaming) is the only one that really belongs in the WP:AT policy, what is said about the other disambiguation techniques should be kept short. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's begin with replacing the convoluted second paragraph, depending on a hypothetical example...
This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other. For instance, an album entitled JESUS would probably have its article located at JESUS (album), with JESUS continuing to be a redirect to Jesus. If the album or other possible uses were deemed by editors to be reasonably likely search results for "JESUS", consensus among editors would determine whether or not JESUS would be the location for the album article, a redirect to Jesus, a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the existing disambiguation page Jesus (disambiguation).
... by something more practical & tangible:
When this can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, renaming to a less ambiguous page name should be considered:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the section currently ends with:
... Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases.
I can't think of a single example for that: does it still have any use? Would support removing that from the policy. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
To Francis Schonken and to all of you:
WP:DIFFCAPS has several different parts that each reflect different move discussions that ended in consensuses. Obviously consensus can change, but until it does, I would assert that this policy should not see a significant change.
I hope this better explains why DIFFCAPS is the way it is. This does not mean that it cannot or should not be changed. But since you wanted to know what was going on, I thought I'd explain. Red Slash 03:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no clear-cut discussion that I remember leading to punctuation being a valid distinguisher, but neither Oklahoma! nor Airplane! have ever had a move seriously suggested.– see Talk:Yahoo!/Archive 1#Requested move, which was well-attended. A later attempt to undo this went nowhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Any time you have a strong local-consensus win against policy when the only reason to oppose that consensus was only because it went against policy (and not because of some actual legitimate reason), the policy should be updated.– If only this were still practical. As WP becomes more and more bureaucratic, this happens less and less, because a) people are more apt to rigidly apply existing policies/guidelines, both as commenters and closers, and b) various policy and guideline pages are increasingly WP:OWNed by particular individuals or tagteams who fight like their lives depended on it to prevent such additions. It's a general problem across the whole project. That said, going back to a totally easygoing model would have its downside: The WP:Specialized-style fallacy would make a raging comeback under such a regime, with vote-stacked polls being declared "local consensuses", and opposition to them on the general-audience-encyclopedia grounds and mainstream RS usage would be wrongly dismissed as "no legitimate reason, but just because it goes against policy". I'm not really sure how we regain a balance, in which exceptions with genuine consensus do get integrated into policy where needed, yet rampant exceptionalism doesn't ensue. In the interim, it's presently extremely difficult to get a legitimate variant worked in, and some would like to see many long-extant particular cases removed from the rules (not just at AT; this applies all over). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's say all articles were not at meaningful titles, but at computer generated ones. So the title of the article for Paris was, say, RSD1573 and the article for Paris, Texas the city was RSD1574 and the article for the film Paris, Texas was RSD1575. Now, Paris and Paris, France would redirect to RSD1573, Paris, Texas would redirect to RSD1574 and Paris, Texas (film) would redirect to RSD1575. I submit everything would work fine. That is, users would find the same articles that they find with today's layout, Google would sort the results the same way it does today, etc. The only thing that would differ would be that the title displayed at the article would not be meaningful, but there would be a meaningful name in bold at the start of the article so, practically, that wouldn't be an issue either.
So if everything can work fine if titles are totally meaningless, why, exactly, is it a problem if titles differ by only a small detail, like capitalization or punctuation? Please explain. -- В²C ☎ 01:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Noting that:
Wikipedia should probably stop respecting the Japanese period in translations to English, both in running text and in titles. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced ... unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject." (emphasis mine). G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm very late to this discussion, but for my two cents worth I am generally against WP:MINORDETAILS, WP:DIFFCAPS etc. and I would favour a move towards a policy or guideline that says we should use disambiguation pages in such cases. Some may regard it as a dumbing down of standards, but the modern trend is towards case insensitivity, not away from it. For practical purposes Jesus, Jesus, and JESUS should be regarded as interchangeable. Similarly V. and V are the same thing. Google searches are always case insensitive (there isn't even a way to make them case sensitive in the advanced options). Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 10:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph added to the policy page:
Using specialized spelling, punctuation or capitalization can also be used for natural disambiguation, even if the trademarked spelling is not the most natural or commonly used name.
This example, contained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, contradicts this, so the proposed addition, besides other flaws, is not suitable policy content. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "victory boasting" is a fair way to describe the situation. Nonetheless, I've reverted Red Slash's edit again. I'm not sure if the consensus supports the idea that the deadmau5 move was sufficiently game-changing to be a prime reason to alter policy about article titles. It might be, but I would like to see more people weigh in to the discussion here. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Further guidance:
In order to avoid redundancy (that may lead to forking of the relevant guidance) I'd replace the end of the first paragraph of the "Standard English and trademarks" section:
(...) ; however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.
by:
(...) . On using minor typographical differences, like a different capitalization, to distinguish article topics see above #When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic.
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion at Gangsta. on moving it to Gangsta (manga) per precedent at Janet. > Janet (album) and Shakira. > Shakira (album).
Since a quick read of WP:AT does not appear to support the move (which IMO seems common sensical: I can't see how a period makes an intelligible dab), and since there are comments that WP:AT might should be modified to reflect the consensus arrived at the move discussion, I thought editors of WP:AT should either chime in or close the move request. — kwami ( talk) 19:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd propose to change the current section title:
to:
Rationale: minor details are not in all circumstances a technique to "naturally disambiguate", and this is partly the reason why the current policy guidance is so confusing, leading to such contradictory statements as "WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply while we're talking about a small difference" and the like (see above). The section should provide guidance when a "smalldetails" issue arrises, and not limit the possible solutions to such issues via the section title to "only" natural disambiguation (which is often not the way this is handled, e.g. P!nk being renamed to a page with a parenthical disambiguator). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Currently the first paragraph of the section reads:
Titles of distinct articles may differ only in small details. Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so appropriate hatnotes with links to the other article(s) and disambiguation pages are strongly advised.
I'd replace that by something in this vein:
Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, e.g. Red meat vs. Red Meat, or Friendly fire vs. the meanings of Friendly Fire listed at Friendly Fire (disambiguation). The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be intending, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours.
And let the next paragraph start with "However, when..." instead of "When...". The rationale for this proposed update is above in #What it is exactly that is important to capture from the guideline, I think this covers the last points I consider essential to recover from the former guideline. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That I can get behind. Red Slash 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This sentence is awkward:
I propose changing it to:
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
We need a statement at DIFFPUNCT that if a title suffices under that section of the policy, it is not to be subjected to redundant disambiguation measures except in the case of an exact name collision. E.g. Yahoo! is not to be changed to Yahoo! (company) unless there are other things exactly named "Yahoo!", e.g. Yahoo! (novel), Yahoo! (film), etc., and Yahoo! (the company) is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. People are genuinely confused about this, as evidenced at WP:Move review/Log/2015 August#Gangsta (manga) and the lead-up RM at (presently) Talk:Gangsta (manga). Either DIFFPUNCT permits the title of this article to be Gangsta., since independent, reliable sources do correctly give its actual title Gangsta., and do so quite consistently (thus satisfying both WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME simultaneously); or this somehow fails DIFFPUNCT, and WP:AT#PARENDIS applies and this should be at Gangsta (manga), in accord with MOS:TM. There is no provision anywhere for going both conflicting directions at the same time and coming up with a pointless "double-DAB" like Gangsta. (manga), unless and until such time as there are Gangsta. (film), Gangsta. (TV series), etc., and Gangsta. (the manga) is not the primary topic.
Several people are simply not getting it, which suggests that we have a lack of policy clarity here. (The sorta-rationale for this view appears to be "mobile users might not notice the .
". But being a mobile user, and even one with crappy eyesight, I don't have any trouble seeing this character on my device; if I did, I would make the font size bigger on my device so I could read properly, like anyone else would.)
Proposed addition: Do not mix typographic distinction with
disambiguation (e.g. parenthetic), unless two or more topics are vying for the same distinct title and the article in question is not the
primary topic.
This would be on a line by itself, between the Passio example and "Plural forms may ...", near the bottom of the section.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
current guidance allows bothis what I just said and what we'd be clarifying. People are being confused into thinking that neither Gangsta. nor Gangsta (manga) should be used, but that we should use Gansgta. (manga), instead. In reality, the policy does not support that at all (absent multiple subjects vying for the title "Gangsta." with a dot, but people are obviously not getting it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: There is no provision anywhere for going both conflicting directions at the same time and coming up with a pointless "double-DAB" - actually there is... the second sentence of WP:CRITERIA states: "There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains." Combine that with the first sentence after the list of criteria, (which reads: These should be seen as goals, not as rules) and it becomes clear that article titles are chosen by flexible consensus, not an inflexible set of "rules". We are allowed to think outside the box.
Now, as Francis has pointed out, there isn't a consensus to use a "double-DAB" in this case. So there is no need to panic. My point is simply that the policy does allow us to at least consider a "double-DAB" as an option.
Blueboar (
talk) 12:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The opening para at Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names currently reads:
Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." (emphasis added).
The proposal here is for the text to read:
Names are often used in article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
or, preferably, to read:
Names are often used in article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some subjects featured in article contents have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
I know that the wording starts "Names are often used ...
" but I think that the proposed text fits better regarding the application of UCRN to such titles as are given within wide ranging contents including, for example, Wikipedia's many articles whose titles begin
"List of ...".
A similarly minor edit to WP:CRITERIA could involve a change from:
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
to:
Recognizability – The title presents a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
Greg Kaye 12:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
the most commonly used term for this subject (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) ..." Take a look at the Ngrams for: I speak English,I speak the English language,you speak English,you speak the English language,they speak English,they speak the English language. "English" is what English is most commonly called in English.
about dictating the outcomes of ... RMs"? It literally states, "
Names are often used as article titles ... and ... Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". In practical effect this prescribes that we should use British White rather than British White cattle; English rather than English language; Princess Diana rather than Diana, Princess of Wales; E.T. rather than E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial etc. In such cases I do not think that editors should be faced with prescriptive policy content but should be free to make which ever choice that may best meet readers' needs.
Names are often not used as article titles" as in the many "List of - content extent qualifier - Foo - qualifier" articles such as List of most common surnames in Asia and List of most consecutive games with touchdown passes in the National Football League and similar contents. Clearly in many cases the mention of "
... often ..." in the existing policy wording is open to interpretation so as to mean all title contents other than "List of ..." and similarly formatted titles.
... as ..." wording is prescriptive while the "
... in ..." wording is open. The wording "
... as or in ..." could also work. The prescriptive "... as ..." wording, on its own, does not leave options as open as it could. I think that it would be better for policy to leave editors free to determine for themselves the best reader friendly / subject representational title for each article. Greg Kaye 05:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Names are often used as article titles"- This is a statement of fact... Names are often used as article titles. I would say that over 80% of the titles in Wikipedia are names. However, note that it says "often" and not "always". It is not dictating that names must be used - or even that they should be used... it is simply noting that they are often used. Of course, sometimes, the topic does not have a "name", and a descriptive phrase is used ( History of timekeeping devices for example)... and in a few rare cases a name may exist, but consensus believes that a descriptive title is better... but in probably 80% or more of our articles the title is simply the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. That is simple fact.
Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". This is closer to a dictate... but it is followed by a whole bunch of caveats and exceptions that we have to take into consideration. Also, note that it says "prefers" not "requires". It's not a demand.
These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.
Amphetamines or substituted amphetamines?
There is the drug amphetamine which belongs to the drug class commonly called the amphetamines, which includes amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy (MDMA), DOM and other amphetamine derivatives, some used medically and many recreationally. Because of the ambiguity between amphetamine and the amphetamines prior editors chose to use substituted amphetamines for the drug class. Technically it is not an incorrect term but it presents issues that bother me. Substituted amphetamines is not commonly used but when it is used, it is overwhelmingly used to refer to ecstasy and similar psychedelic amphetamines and methamphetamine. This creates a difficult issue.
Indeed substituted amphetamines may disambiguate from amphetamine the drug here at Wikipedia. But the term suggests amphetamine derivatives, it is commonly used regarding amphetamine derivatives but rarely about amphetamine itself. This is true not only on Google but search engines of scientific/medical literature like PubMed. (Google results where substituted amphetamines conforms to Wikpedia usage overwhelmingly are Wikipedia & Wiki related sites and those copying content from Wikipedia & Wiki related sites.) We do not say substituted benzodiazepines nor substituted barbiturates so the substituted element suggests derivatives. Solving one ambiguity is creating another. Amphetamines may be confused with amphetamine itself, but substituted amphetamines may be confused with all but amphetamine itself. Continually defining what either term means is not desirable yet defining it once or twice invites confusion if one lands in another section or doesn't read carefully.
Policies directing editors to choose a less common name to resolve ambiguity may be used to defend substituted amphetamines, but do not consider names that are much much less common and moreover present confusion moving outside of Wikipedia or with common usage. Imagine a student researching amphetamines starting at Wikipedia, learning the proper term is substituted amphetamines, moving beyond Wikipedia now looking for substituted amphetamines and finding material almost exclusively about designer drugs and methamphetamine. Now we have indeed distinguished amphetamine and amphetamines to the exclusion of the former--which is a lead character in the drug class.
Perhaps "the" would better substitute for the substituted in substituted amphetamines. Sorry, let me try again: I wonder if "the amphetamines" solves the dilemma? Box73 ( talk) 11:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)