![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
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.
Following on from a proposed page move at
Talk:Olympic Stadium (Amsterdam)#Requested move 10 December 2020, I am seeking to include a specific naming convention for articles on sports stadia. Apart from
WP:CHURCH, which is an essay rather than a formal policy, there aren't any specific naming conventions for buildings and structures and I had understood that
WP:NCPLACE applied to sports stadia in that: Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names
. As buildings and structures are located in named places rather than instances of the named place, I believe that this convention should also apply to sports stadia whereby the primary disambiguator should be the city or town they are located unless there is a more suitable disambiguator, for example
Wembley Stadium and
Wembley Stadium (1923). I would like to know other editors opinions on avoiding the use of parenthetical disambiguating tags for sports stadia as well as the most appropriate project page for including a new naming convention for sports stadia as I am unsure whether
WP:NCPLACE is the correct place to include a new naming convention for sports stadia as a result of the requested move discussion above.
Stevie fae Scotland (
talk) 23:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"...when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title", which is not the case here. wjemather please leave a message... 12:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
"...when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title"so this would not be a "magical exception". Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 10:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. I had hoped to standardise and create a formal policy for sports stadia but there is clearly enough difference of opinion that I don't think we could have a one size fits all policy. I would, however, have no objection to removing the comma for the King's Theatres in Glasgow and Edinburgh as that is clearly the common name. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"Amsterdam Olympic Stadium", that this is the most common name in English, then use that, per COMMONNAME. What's with the additional word "most". "Amsterdam Olympic Stadium" is a commonly recognizable name of the topic. That is sufficient for it to be considered, and being natural English, and matching enumerated option #1, should be considered "default". The *most* COMMONNAME is not suitable due to it being ambiguous. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Stable version to revert to#RFC for a RFC involving TITLECHANGES. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I reverted
this edit that added [[Human]] (not: ''Homo sapiens'')
as an example and requested that the editor get consensus to use that as a precedent-setting example here first. The editor is currently involved in a discussion for the name of
Dragon Man (archaic human) and it appeared to me that they added the human example to the policy to strengthen their argument against changing the Dragon Man title to Homo longi.
Schazjmd
(talk) 15:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Good morning,
At WP:SHIPS, I attempted to raise discussion on the possible deprecation of the WP:SHIPS naming guidelines here due to article titles no longer following the guidelines. However, I have received one response and little discussion, so I am asking here for advice on what to do next. Thank you for your responses. Llammakey ( talk) 11:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
At WP:QUALIFIER comma-disambiguation is separated from natural disambiguation which suggests it can be appropriate to use comma disambiguation when it’s not natural. I don’t believe that’s the intent, nor the practice, and I propose making this clear. Otherwise Cork (city) would be at Cork, County Cork. We don’t use the latter because it’s unnatural… generally not found in reliable source usage.
We can indent comma-disambiguation to be under natural disambiguation, implying it’s a particular kind of natural disambiguation. We can also add clarification, like this:
Thoughts? — В²C ☎ 16:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
plz see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation_of_street_names_by_city Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor, Antoine Legrand, made these changes: [4].
They're just wording changes, but I rolled them back on the grounds of 1) this is a policy page so we want to be super careful about making changes just on somebody's say-so, and 2) it was fine before. I don't think the extra words are needed. It's a matter of taste and opinion, kind of, so if anyone disagrees make your case here. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
OK. Well, first of all, WP:BRD doesn't work like that. It may not be a great idea to give new editors the impression that it does. Let's not edit war over this, that would be really silly. Second, I can't overly worry if people want to get angry over being reverted. It's not uncommon for new editors (as Antoine Legrand is) to get reverted as they learn the ropes. Happened to me. If a new editor gets angry if people don't consider all of their early edits to be improvements... that's not a good start.
Third of all, no, I'm not a huge fan of making changes to policy pages unless it's really necessary. These aren't. If editors think that they are really necessary, it's worth hashing out I think. Editors messing with policy pages on their own dime is just too risky to justify any upside if there even is one. That's for my part; you can disagree if you like. Granted, these are pretty much just wording changes, so it'd be OK to let it go -- if they were improvements. But they're not. "Enh, whatever" doesn't apply near as much to policy pages as it might to other pages.
So, as a general principle, policy pages should be concise. They're important, they are read a lot, they have a lot to say, they are discussed and argued over a lot, and anything which makes that harder, such as unnecessary extra verbiage, isn't wanted.
So, let's see... Changing " Wikipedia:Category names, guideline" to " Wikipedia:Category names, a list of guidelines concerning naming conventions for categories"... that's just extra verbiage. We don't need to tell the reader that Wikipedia:Category names]] is about naming conventions for categories, or that it contains many suggestions rather than just one. It's extra work to read thru the extra stuff.
" Wikipedia:In versus of, a supplement on prepositions" is sufficient I would think. " Wikipedia:in versus of, proper use of in and of (or some alternatives, as from and on)"... how far do we want to go here? If the reader is interested enough to access the page, she will soon find that it has a whole lot material, including that, besides in and of (which is the main point of the page, which I guess is why it has that title), there is from and on and maybe you should avoid prepositions in some cases and so on. How much of all this do we need to include in the link? I'm asking. (FWIW Changing "Wikipedia:In versus of to "Wikipedia:in versus of may not be improvement either, since Wikipedia pages don't start with lowercase letters. It's probably OK, it was OK before, it's just roiling the text for the sake of it.)
It's not horrible to tell the reader that "in versus on" also talks about other things. It's just extra words. Helpful? I don't think so. A big deal? Not really, so why are you all edit warring over this? Let's leave the question open for a while, and see what other folks think. Or if an RfC is order, fine, start one.
On principle as well as on the merits (as I see them), I've reverted to the page to the original state. Please read WP:BRD carefully. Some later edits will have also been lost, but that's what happens when edit wars heat up. Let's not do that. Make your case instead on the merits, please. Herostratus ( talk) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
"I've reverted to the page to the original state. Please read WP:BRD carefully
The other editor didnt revert you, i.e., there was no edit war (against which BRD is). Somebody else did, after answering to you in talk page.
Lembit Staan (
talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Following my reverted contribution I start a discussion to reach consensus at a single centralized location: Wikipedia_talk:Project_namespace#contributor=editor=Wikipedian — Antoine Legrand ( talk) 19:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
Moved to where it belongs: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#contributor=editor=Wikipedian. Lembit Staan ( talk) 21:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This page used to use the term "conciseness" for one of the 5 WP:CRITERIA. Keith-264 changed it in one place (a section heading) to "concision". I changed it back, and Born2cycle reverted, so maybe now we should discuss.
I have a mild preference for the status quo, because I understand "conciseness" to be the more common/standard nominalization (per wikt:concision).
Either way, as I said in my edit summary, if we are switching to "concision", we should replace throughout the page. Right now the term "conciseness" still appears 6 times in this page, including 2 broken section links. Colin M ( talk) 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, my. I never thought I'd have to take this to the Talk page, but my deletion of a sentence regarding "Islamic terrorism" was reverted here. We certainly don't need to equate Islam with terrorism, nor do we really need the (scurrilous) example we are using. I propose that the sentence simply be deleted as unnecessary at best and scurrilous at worst. Kindly comment, and be prepared to suggest some other wording that is not hateful to one religious group or another. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 21:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Because of the popularity of product names and fictional characters over the second millenium, I added a section for product names and fictional characters, as there are now lots of different product names and fictional characters. Naming them to conform with the "common name" guideline is only more and more important. For instance, the game Bloons TD 6 is almost always referred as "Bloons TD 6" in most media and by person to person, and not "Bloons Tower Defense 6" as the other Bloons TD series games had been referred to. Same with Fall Guys as not "Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout". Hence why it's so important to provide examples for product names, and also the same for fictional characters for similar reasons. Other examples provided do not provide enough of a reasoning like the people names or scientific stuff, because those topics about product names and fictional characters just aren't within the appropriate contexts that naming conventions for those matter. Dealing with product names are not the same as those for dealing with the names of people or animals. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 01:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
What should the article's name be when it is about a person that is commonly known by a derogatory (yet not necessarily vulgar) nickname given by their enemy? By WP:NPOVNAME, it seems that the non-neutral name should be used, however derogatory and most likely disapproved by target it is.
The act of ascribing a nickname that is unwanted is arguably a violation of one's personal rights, but might still be commonplace and left unattended, especially when the subject is deceased. Using that nickname as the title of their article per WP:NPOVNAME (and not just in the body as a noteworthy fact), Wikipedia would be perpetrating the violation and a form of psychological violence in some extreme cases.
I propose to discuss an improvement of the policy in this regard. My suggestion is to introduce a new first subsection to WP:NPOVTITLE called Derogatory but common names, and write the following in it:
Derogatory nicknames, however common, cannot be used as the title of an article about an individual, unless the individual explicitly endorses the nickname. In such cases, the next most common name is used instead. For example, if Alexander the Great was commonly referred to as Alexander the Weak without his approval, his article would be titled Alexander III of Macedon.
--— manual signature: comment added by ThoAppelsin ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there a noticeboard or other forum to advise on article names? If yes, could it somehow be linked to the article here?-- Pgallert ( talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised.so that probably rules out "John Robert Walters". As for the choice of disambiguator, WP:NCDAB suggests that
If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler.That seems to suggest "lawyer" but, having seen that he served as ombudsman for 17+ years, "ombudsman" might be a better choice, since J. Reed Walters was also an attorney. No such user ( talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Proposal to add country to all monarch titles whether the name of the monarch requires disambiguation by country, or not:
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#RFC:_Regnal_names
— В²C ☎ 00:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel like Wikipedia:Assassination should be mentioned somewhere in here. Last week, there was heavy debates on whether a politician being murder is "murder" or "assassination" in the article title. Reliable sources used murder instead of assassination, so Wikipedia also used murder, despite Wikipedia's definition of assassination saying "The murder of prominent or important person, such as...politicians." The essay talks about how what term RS use is the term Wikipedia uses, despite common definitions. After reading this guidelines, I believe it should be added somewhere, but I have no idea where is best to add this. Elijahandskip ( talk) 01:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Meta, Inc. § Name change. Following
Facebook's name change, some article title folks may want to share thoughts there. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 20:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Principle of Some Astonishment#Requested move 30 October 2021 it is being claimed that an essay can use title case rather than sententious case. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
MOS:ENBETWEEN says to use an en dash instead of a hyphen when referring to wars with two opposing sides in its name. However, I noticed that a lot of articles about wars use the hyphen instead in their titles and leads, and when I say a lot, I mean a lot. To name a few: Russo-Ukrainian War, First Sino-Japanese War, Franco-Visigothic Wars, Anglo-Scottish Wars, Greco-Persian Wars, Italo-Ethiopian War of 1887–1889, Anglo-Nepalese War, ... This is clearly a wide-ranging problem, but I fear that finding and changing every one of those article titles would be extremely tedious. So, what should we do about this? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok to use "(murderer)" for disambiguating the article title about a living person, assuming this person received a conviction for murder? For example, Eric Smith (murderer). I understand that WP:DEATHS recommends titles like "Murder of..." for an event. But still I wonder if there might be a better disambiguator in such cases. VR talk 19:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, title experts! I was wondering if any of you might have a suggestion for how to retitle the article St. Louis gun-toting controversy. A discussion has been started here. Thanks for any input. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion of whether to use "Kyle Rittenhouse shootings" in a title, underway at Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Requested_move_23_November_2021, may be of interest here.
The general WP:AT question implicated there is whether shootings, bombings, or other (single) cases of lethal force applied by one person with several casualties (hence not normally describable as "shooting of [person]") can be named after the killer. This seems like something where there is already uniformity in how it is done that could be codified at AT. Sesquivalent ( talk) 02:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion involving WP:SMALLDETAILS ongoing at Talk:Baa Baaa Black Sheep (Baa Baaa Black Sheep vs. Baa, Baa, Black Sheep) if you're interested. — AjaxSmack 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've seen some near intractable situations created by the ambiguity of dual-qualifier titles.
Sometimes they clearly and only use the two qualifiers to narrow the topic. I.E Bulgarian folk musicians
Other times it can be ambiguous. For example, Nobel Prize winning athletes which could be:
IMO it would help things if either:
This would not only help guide / clarify for article development, but also clarify for wp:GNG purposes starting with NPP patrol and also at AFD's. For example, #1 might just require finding coverage of athletes who won Nobel prizes. #2 would require finding suitable coverage of study of the possible cause-effect relationship between the two.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The Category " Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court opinions by topic" contains 13 members, most of which do not seem to adhere to any naming conventions. Eleven of them begin with "List of United States Supreme Court" but, after that, they vary as follows:
Some kind of standard needs to be applied here. I think the current most popular phrasing, "List of United States Supreme Court cases involving x," seems like it would be appropriate. I can't see any reason to depart from the most popular convention. -- Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 04:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
MOS:ENBETWEEN says to use an en dash instead of a hyphen when referring to wars with two opposing sides in its name. However, I noticed that a lot of articles about wars use the hyphen instead in their titles and leads, and when I say a lot, I mean a lot. To name a few: Russo-Ukrainian War, First Sino-Japanese War, Franco-Visigothic Wars, Anglo-Scottish Wars, Greco-Persian Wars, Italo-Ethiopian War of 1887–1889, Anglo-Nepalese War, ... This is clearly a wide-ranging problem, but I fear that finding and changing every one of those article titles would be extremely tedious. So, what should we do about this? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a venue to ask questions about how articles should be titled? At Talk:Graffito of Esmet-Akhom there's uncertainty about what the common name actually is (not a dispute, just a case where both the editors discussing the issue are unsure). A. Parrot ( talk) 18:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
An interesting point has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Official names#Name changes.
I have always believed that following a name change, a corporate rebranding for example, we required evidence that reliable secondary sources had adopted the new name before moving the article.
But a good case has been made that this is contrary to policy, and that adoption of the new name by primary sources is sufficient under WP:NAMECHANGES.
This flies in the face of commonsense as far as I can see, so perhaps the policy needs clarification? Or is it being misinterpreted? How exactly?
Other views? Andrewa ( talk) 10:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm basically with Havelock Jones here. While having secondary sources that affirm the name change is desirable, those may not be readily available. For many obscure organizations and companies, we have articles created years or even decades ago, often based on a handful of then-actual sources. As Havelock Jones points out, if something relatively obscure goes on to change its name, it is highly unlikely that people (and whichever secondary sources may eventually get to them) will persist calling it by the old name. I do not think it is fair to disregard primary sources (typically, the organization website and social network accounts) and to deny the requested move just because the proposer did not supply enough evidence in form of secondary sources. Just use common sense. No such user ( talk) 10:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
See this RM !vote. I'm not so much interested in the outcome of this RM (I don't think it improves Wikipedia much either way) as in the rationale of this !vote.
It seems to me that this rationale is quite wrong. But it also seems to me that current guidelines are not sufficiently clear on this point.
Pinging User:Born2cycle, User:PBS, [[ User:No such user, User:Havelock Jones, User:Paul August. Thank you for your input above.
(Have I missed anyone?)
I have two questions.
(1) Does anyone think that the rationale given by this !vote is valid?
(2) For those who agree with me that this rationale is not valid, is this clear in current policy and guidelines? Where?
As an RM regular, I would appreciate clarity on this, and I doubt that I am the only one. Andrewa ( talk) 17:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
How do we interpret titles like Racquetball at the 2009 World Games – women's singles and 2017 FIL European Luge Championships – Women's singles and 1969 New South Wales Open – Women's Singles. Sometimes we see lowercase after the dash, as I would expect, but more often we see caps; even multiple capped words in the case of tennis. Is this like a subtitle? Is there any guideline relevant to it? MOS:SENTENCECAPS says not to cap after a dash, but that seems more about a sentence dash than whatever this is. Is there anything in Title or MOS about this kind of dashed title? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
While it's most common in sporting events, we also see thousands of other two-part titles with spaced en dash separation, such as (with my comments):
The fact that so many of these are unsourced stubs suggests that they might be fixed when someone works on them. But others are clearly part of some intentional pattern, or at least are not unsourced and not stubs. I know the Milhist folks like to have "proper names" for battles, even if they have to synthesize some actions and make up names for them. And the many categories of sporting events and entertainment awards sometimes get done this way, but I still don't see how to interpret those in terms of our title and capitalization policies and guidelines. Like why is the "subtitle" of an event after the dash ever capped, and why sometimes in title case, when clearly not a proper name. It seems like the Milhist case, where they want to treat the made up compound as a proper name. Can we stop doing that? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I've tracked many of these (about 20,000) to User:DASHBot, which from 2009 to 2013 blindly moved titles from spaced hyphens to spaced en dashes; in many cases, unspaced en dash would have been the right thing to do, and I've just fixed a dozen or so of those, but there are thousands to go. Many of the others just mapped funny hyphen-separated two-part titles to funny dash-separated two-part titles of the sort I'm inquiring about. What a mess. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
At WT:WikiProject Tennis#More discussion about dashes in sporting event titles I'm seeing pretty much a "tennis is special" argument about why they cap things like "Women's Doubles" when sources do not. Not to do with en dashes, but clearly contrary to MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe these dashed constructs should just be avoided, so we don't have to work the capitalization issue? Could do French Open women's doubles, for example, as is done in books. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Common Name is an officially policy regarding how (English) Wikipedia should title articles about subjects. There has been contention over the years about how the Wikipedia community should title individuals and whether their preferences should have any influence on its naming. As of right now, a person's preference is not a factor and the only factor what whether reliable sources refers to the individual. High profile debates regarding individuals name have included Hillary Clinton (formerly titled Hillary Rodham Clinton]]). This discussion is particularly pertaining to when an individual legally changes their name via court order, marriage or divorce. Should we allow an exception or create a new policy/guideline that titles articles based on the personal preference of the person and take in account life events such as legal name changes? The reason I would like to bring this up is because there does not seem to be much consistency about this, probably because WP:COMMONNAME is decided on a base by base case. Currently, there is contention regarding Kanye West and whether the page should reflect his new legal name of Ye ( here). This page has not been moved but it has been under discussion. This is comparable to other recent high profile name changes: Hailey Baldwin to Hailey Bieber, Melinda Gates to Melinda French Gates, MacKenzie Bezos to MacKenzie Scott, Facebook, Inc. to Meta Platforms, and other discussions in the past such as Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning. Some pages have been moved quicker than others, i.e. when it involves transgender individuals. Relevant topics related to this RfC are WP:NAMECHANGES, MOS:AT, MOS:BOLDLEAD, WP:SPNC, WP:NCP and MOS:DEADNAME. Any other editors who wanted to add any more relevant information and comments can below. Me opening this discussion should not be interpreted as support or opposition to any proposed changes. cookie monster 755 00:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I came across Qui Con Me (Ni De Se Cai 你的色彩), it's gotta be wrong, right? Abductive ( reasoning) 03:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This edit has deleted a closing strikethrough code. The edit has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 49. The consequence is to render a large part of the archive page essentially unreadable. I am replacing the code at the archive page and leaving this edit id as a comment for explanation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
this edit refers. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I am just taking part in a discussion where WP:CONSISTENT was brought forward as an argument and as I clicked on it I was surprised that to were I was led to, WP:CONSISTENT was not mentioned like WP:CRITERIA as a shortcut how to get to the section. Wouldn't it be helpful if WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CRITERIA be both mentioned as redirects in the section they lead to as redirects? At least for me it was confusing that WP:CONSISTENT wasn't mentioned, as I thought the editor misspelled. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a consensus convention around these terms? There has been a lot of moving recently, e.g. at WP:CFR/S. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Bottom line, such category moves are not suitable candidates for WP:CFR/S. Establish consensus via RM discussions first, then cats can easily follow their main articles. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It could look something like this:
It would allow searching for text in any pages starting with prefix "Wikipedia:Naming conventions". — andrybak ( talk) 22:25, 17 January 2022 (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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
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.
Following on from a proposed page move at
Talk:Olympic Stadium (Amsterdam)#Requested move 10 December 2020, I am seeking to include a specific naming convention for articles on sports stadia. Apart from
WP:CHURCH, which is an essay rather than a formal policy, there aren't any specific naming conventions for buildings and structures and I had understood that
WP:NCPLACE applied to sports stadia in that: Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names
. As buildings and structures are located in named places rather than instances of the named place, I believe that this convention should also apply to sports stadia whereby the primary disambiguator should be the city or town they are located unless there is a more suitable disambiguator, for example
Wembley Stadium and
Wembley Stadium (1923). I would like to know other editors opinions on avoiding the use of parenthetical disambiguating tags for sports stadia as well as the most appropriate project page for including a new naming convention for sports stadia as I am unsure whether
WP:NCPLACE is the correct place to include a new naming convention for sports stadia as a result of the requested move discussion above.
Stevie fae Scotland (
talk) 23:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"...when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title", which is not the case here. wjemather please leave a message... 12:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
"...when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title"so this would not be a "magical exception". Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 10:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. I had hoped to standardise and create a formal policy for sports stadia but there is clearly enough difference of opinion that I don't think we could have a one size fits all policy. I would, however, have no objection to removing the comma for the King's Theatres in Glasgow and Edinburgh as that is clearly the common name. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"Amsterdam Olympic Stadium", that this is the most common name in English, then use that, per COMMONNAME. What's with the additional word "most". "Amsterdam Olympic Stadium" is a commonly recognizable name of the topic. That is sufficient for it to be considered, and being natural English, and matching enumerated option #1, should be considered "default". The *most* COMMONNAME is not suitable due to it being ambiguous. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Stable version to revert to#RFC for a RFC involving TITLECHANGES. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I reverted
this edit that added [[Human]] (not: ''Homo sapiens'')
as an example and requested that the editor get consensus to use that as a precedent-setting example here first. The editor is currently involved in a discussion for the name of
Dragon Man (archaic human) and it appeared to me that they added the human example to the policy to strengthen their argument against changing the Dragon Man title to Homo longi.
Schazjmd
(talk) 15:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Good morning,
At WP:SHIPS, I attempted to raise discussion on the possible deprecation of the WP:SHIPS naming guidelines here due to article titles no longer following the guidelines. However, I have received one response and little discussion, so I am asking here for advice on what to do next. Thank you for your responses. Llammakey ( talk) 11:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
At WP:QUALIFIER comma-disambiguation is separated from natural disambiguation which suggests it can be appropriate to use comma disambiguation when it’s not natural. I don’t believe that’s the intent, nor the practice, and I propose making this clear. Otherwise Cork (city) would be at Cork, County Cork. We don’t use the latter because it’s unnatural… generally not found in reliable source usage.
We can indent comma-disambiguation to be under natural disambiguation, implying it’s a particular kind of natural disambiguation. We can also add clarification, like this:
Thoughts? — В²C ☎ 16:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
plz see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation_of_street_names_by_city Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor, Antoine Legrand, made these changes: [4].
They're just wording changes, but I rolled them back on the grounds of 1) this is a policy page so we want to be super careful about making changes just on somebody's say-so, and 2) it was fine before. I don't think the extra words are needed. It's a matter of taste and opinion, kind of, so if anyone disagrees make your case here. Herostratus ( talk) 19:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
OK. Well, first of all, WP:BRD doesn't work like that. It may not be a great idea to give new editors the impression that it does. Let's not edit war over this, that would be really silly. Second, I can't overly worry if people want to get angry over being reverted. It's not uncommon for new editors (as Antoine Legrand is) to get reverted as they learn the ropes. Happened to me. If a new editor gets angry if people don't consider all of their early edits to be improvements... that's not a good start.
Third of all, no, I'm not a huge fan of making changes to policy pages unless it's really necessary. These aren't. If editors think that they are really necessary, it's worth hashing out I think. Editors messing with policy pages on their own dime is just too risky to justify any upside if there even is one. That's for my part; you can disagree if you like. Granted, these are pretty much just wording changes, so it'd be OK to let it go -- if they were improvements. But they're not. "Enh, whatever" doesn't apply near as much to policy pages as it might to other pages.
So, as a general principle, policy pages should be concise. They're important, they are read a lot, they have a lot to say, they are discussed and argued over a lot, and anything which makes that harder, such as unnecessary extra verbiage, isn't wanted.
So, let's see... Changing " Wikipedia:Category names, guideline" to " Wikipedia:Category names, a list of guidelines concerning naming conventions for categories"... that's just extra verbiage. We don't need to tell the reader that Wikipedia:Category names]] is about naming conventions for categories, or that it contains many suggestions rather than just one. It's extra work to read thru the extra stuff.
" Wikipedia:In versus of, a supplement on prepositions" is sufficient I would think. " Wikipedia:in versus of, proper use of in and of (or some alternatives, as from and on)"... how far do we want to go here? If the reader is interested enough to access the page, she will soon find that it has a whole lot material, including that, besides in and of (which is the main point of the page, which I guess is why it has that title), there is from and on and maybe you should avoid prepositions in some cases and so on. How much of all this do we need to include in the link? I'm asking. (FWIW Changing "Wikipedia:In versus of to "Wikipedia:in versus of may not be improvement either, since Wikipedia pages don't start with lowercase letters. It's probably OK, it was OK before, it's just roiling the text for the sake of it.)
It's not horrible to tell the reader that "in versus on" also talks about other things. It's just extra words. Helpful? I don't think so. A big deal? Not really, so why are you all edit warring over this? Let's leave the question open for a while, and see what other folks think. Or if an RfC is order, fine, start one.
On principle as well as on the merits (as I see them), I've reverted to the page to the original state. Please read WP:BRD carefully. Some later edits will have also been lost, but that's what happens when edit wars heat up. Let's not do that. Make your case instead on the merits, please. Herostratus ( talk) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
"I've reverted to the page to the original state. Please read WP:BRD carefully
The other editor didnt revert you, i.e., there was no edit war (against which BRD is). Somebody else did, after answering to you in talk page.
Lembit Staan (
talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Following my reverted contribution I start a discussion to reach consensus at a single centralized location: Wikipedia_talk:Project_namespace#contributor=editor=Wikipedian — Antoine Legrand ( talk) 19:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
Moved to where it belongs: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#contributor=editor=Wikipedian. Lembit Staan ( talk) 21:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This page used to use the term "conciseness" for one of the 5 WP:CRITERIA. Keith-264 changed it in one place (a section heading) to "concision". I changed it back, and Born2cycle reverted, so maybe now we should discuss.
I have a mild preference for the status quo, because I understand "conciseness" to be the more common/standard nominalization (per wikt:concision).
Either way, as I said in my edit summary, if we are switching to "concision", we should replace throughout the page. Right now the term "conciseness" still appears 6 times in this page, including 2 broken section links. Colin M ( talk) 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, my. I never thought I'd have to take this to the Talk page, but my deletion of a sentence regarding "Islamic terrorism" was reverted here. We certainly don't need to equate Islam with terrorism, nor do we really need the (scurrilous) example we are using. I propose that the sentence simply be deleted as unnecessary at best and scurrilous at worst. Kindly comment, and be prepared to suggest some other wording that is not hateful to one religious group or another. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 21:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Because of the popularity of product names and fictional characters over the second millenium, I added a section for product names and fictional characters, as there are now lots of different product names and fictional characters. Naming them to conform with the "common name" guideline is only more and more important. For instance, the game Bloons TD 6 is almost always referred as "Bloons TD 6" in most media and by person to person, and not "Bloons Tower Defense 6" as the other Bloons TD series games had been referred to. Same with Fall Guys as not "Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout". Hence why it's so important to provide examples for product names, and also the same for fictional characters for similar reasons. Other examples provided do not provide enough of a reasoning like the people names or scientific stuff, because those topics about product names and fictional characters just aren't within the appropriate contexts that naming conventions for those matter. Dealing with product names are not the same as those for dealing with the names of people or animals. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 01:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
What should the article's name be when it is about a person that is commonly known by a derogatory (yet not necessarily vulgar) nickname given by their enemy? By WP:NPOVNAME, it seems that the non-neutral name should be used, however derogatory and most likely disapproved by target it is.
The act of ascribing a nickname that is unwanted is arguably a violation of one's personal rights, but might still be commonplace and left unattended, especially when the subject is deceased. Using that nickname as the title of their article per WP:NPOVNAME (and not just in the body as a noteworthy fact), Wikipedia would be perpetrating the violation and a form of psychological violence in some extreme cases.
I propose to discuss an improvement of the policy in this regard. My suggestion is to introduce a new first subsection to WP:NPOVTITLE called Derogatory but common names, and write the following in it:
Derogatory nicknames, however common, cannot be used as the title of an article about an individual, unless the individual explicitly endorses the nickname. In such cases, the next most common name is used instead. For example, if Alexander the Great was commonly referred to as Alexander the Weak without his approval, his article would be titled Alexander III of Macedon.
--— manual signature: comment added by ThoAppelsin ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there a noticeboard or other forum to advise on article names? If yes, could it somehow be linked to the article here?-- Pgallert ( talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised.so that probably rules out "John Robert Walters". As for the choice of disambiguator, WP:NCDAB suggests that
If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler.That seems to suggest "lawyer" but, having seen that he served as ombudsman for 17+ years, "ombudsman" might be a better choice, since J. Reed Walters was also an attorney. No such user ( talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Proposal to add country to all monarch titles whether the name of the monarch requires disambiguation by country, or not:
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#RFC:_Regnal_names
— В²C ☎ 00:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel like Wikipedia:Assassination should be mentioned somewhere in here. Last week, there was heavy debates on whether a politician being murder is "murder" or "assassination" in the article title. Reliable sources used murder instead of assassination, so Wikipedia also used murder, despite Wikipedia's definition of assassination saying "The murder of prominent or important person, such as...politicians." The essay talks about how what term RS use is the term Wikipedia uses, despite common definitions. After reading this guidelines, I believe it should be added somewhere, but I have no idea where is best to add this. Elijahandskip ( talk) 01:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Meta, Inc. § Name change. Following
Facebook's name change, some article title folks may want to share thoughts there. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 20:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Principle of Some Astonishment#Requested move 30 October 2021 it is being claimed that an essay can use title case rather than sententious case. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
MOS:ENBETWEEN says to use an en dash instead of a hyphen when referring to wars with two opposing sides in its name. However, I noticed that a lot of articles about wars use the hyphen instead in their titles and leads, and when I say a lot, I mean a lot. To name a few: Russo-Ukrainian War, First Sino-Japanese War, Franco-Visigothic Wars, Anglo-Scottish Wars, Greco-Persian Wars, Italo-Ethiopian War of 1887–1889, Anglo-Nepalese War, ... This is clearly a wide-ranging problem, but I fear that finding and changing every one of those article titles would be extremely tedious. So, what should we do about this? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok to use "(murderer)" for disambiguating the article title about a living person, assuming this person received a conviction for murder? For example, Eric Smith (murderer). I understand that WP:DEATHS recommends titles like "Murder of..." for an event. But still I wonder if there might be a better disambiguator in such cases. VR talk 19:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, title experts! I was wondering if any of you might have a suggestion for how to retitle the article St. Louis gun-toting controversy. A discussion has been started here. Thanks for any input. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion of whether to use "Kyle Rittenhouse shootings" in a title, underway at Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Requested_move_23_November_2021, may be of interest here.
The general WP:AT question implicated there is whether shootings, bombings, or other (single) cases of lethal force applied by one person with several casualties (hence not normally describable as "shooting of [person]") can be named after the killer. This seems like something where there is already uniformity in how it is done that could be codified at AT. Sesquivalent ( talk) 02:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion involving WP:SMALLDETAILS ongoing at Talk:Baa Baaa Black Sheep (Baa Baaa Black Sheep vs. Baa, Baa, Black Sheep) if you're interested. — AjaxSmack 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've seen some near intractable situations created by the ambiguity of dual-qualifier titles.
Sometimes they clearly and only use the two qualifiers to narrow the topic. I.E Bulgarian folk musicians
Other times it can be ambiguous. For example, Nobel Prize winning athletes which could be:
IMO it would help things if either:
This would not only help guide / clarify for article development, but also clarify for wp:GNG purposes starting with NPP patrol and also at AFD's. For example, #1 might just require finding coverage of athletes who won Nobel prizes. #2 would require finding suitable coverage of study of the possible cause-effect relationship between the two.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The Category " Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court opinions by topic" contains 13 members, most of which do not seem to adhere to any naming conventions. Eleven of them begin with "List of United States Supreme Court" but, after that, they vary as follows:
Some kind of standard needs to be applied here. I think the current most popular phrasing, "List of United States Supreme Court cases involving x," seems like it would be appropriate. I can't see any reason to depart from the most popular convention. -- Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 04:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
MOS:ENBETWEEN says to use an en dash instead of a hyphen when referring to wars with two opposing sides in its name. However, I noticed that a lot of articles about wars use the hyphen instead in their titles and leads, and when I say a lot, I mean a lot. To name a few: Russo-Ukrainian War, First Sino-Japanese War, Franco-Visigothic Wars, Anglo-Scottish Wars, Greco-Persian Wars, Italo-Ethiopian War of 1887–1889, Anglo-Nepalese War, ... This is clearly a wide-ranging problem, but I fear that finding and changing every one of those article titles would be extremely tedious. So, what should we do about this? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a venue to ask questions about how articles should be titled? At Talk:Graffito of Esmet-Akhom there's uncertainty about what the common name actually is (not a dispute, just a case where both the editors discussing the issue are unsure). A. Parrot ( talk) 18:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
An interesting point has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Official names#Name changes.
I have always believed that following a name change, a corporate rebranding for example, we required evidence that reliable secondary sources had adopted the new name before moving the article.
But a good case has been made that this is contrary to policy, and that adoption of the new name by primary sources is sufficient under WP:NAMECHANGES.
This flies in the face of commonsense as far as I can see, so perhaps the policy needs clarification? Or is it being misinterpreted? How exactly?
Other views? Andrewa ( talk) 10:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm basically with Havelock Jones here. While having secondary sources that affirm the name change is desirable, those may not be readily available. For many obscure organizations and companies, we have articles created years or even decades ago, often based on a handful of then-actual sources. As Havelock Jones points out, if something relatively obscure goes on to change its name, it is highly unlikely that people (and whichever secondary sources may eventually get to them) will persist calling it by the old name. I do not think it is fair to disregard primary sources (typically, the organization website and social network accounts) and to deny the requested move just because the proposer did not supply enough evidence in form of secondary sources. Just use common sense. No such user ( talk) 10:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
See this RM !vote. I'm not so much interested in the outcome of this RM (I don't think it improves Wikipedia much either way) as in the rationale of this !vote.
It seems to me that this rationale is quite wrong. But it also seems to me that current guidelines are not sufficiently clear on this point.
Pinging User:Born2cycle, User:PBS, [[ User:No such user, User:Havelock Jones, User:Paul August. Thank you for your input above.
(Have I missed anyone?)
I have two questions.
(1) Does anyone think that the rationale given by this !vote is valid?
(2) For those who agree with me that this rationale is not valid, is this clear in current policy and guidelines? Where?
As an RM regular, I would appreciate clarity on this, and I doubt that I am the only one. Andrewa ( talk) 17:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
How do we interpret titles like Racquetball at the 2009 World Games – women's singles and 2017 FIL European Luge Championships – Women's singles and 1969 New South Wales Open – Women's Singles. Sometimes we see lowercase after the dash, as I would expect, but more often we see caps; even multiple capped words in the case of tennis. Is this like a subtitle? Is there any guideline relevant to it? MOS:SENTENCECAPS says not to cap after a dash, but that seems more about a sentence dash than whatever this is. Is there anything in Title or MOS about this kind of dashed title? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
While it's most common in sporting events, we also see thousands of other two-part titles with spaced en dash separation, such as (with my comments):
The fact that so many of these are unsourced stubs suggests that they might be fixed when someone works on them. But others are clearly part of some intentional pattern, or at least are not unsourced and not stubs. I know the Milhist folks like to have "proper names" for battles, even if they have to synthesize some actions and make up names for them. And the many categories of sporting events and entertainment awards sometimes get done this way, but I still don't see how to interpret those in terms of our title and capitalization policies and guidelines. Like why is the "subtitle" of an event after the dash ever capped, and why sometimes in title case, when clearly not a proper name. It seems like the Milhist case, where they want to treat the made up compound as a proper name. Can we stop doing that? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I've tracked many of these (about 20,000) to User:DASHBot, which from 2009 to 2013 blindly moved titles from spaced hyphens to spaced en dashes; in many cases, unspaced en dash would have been the right thing to do, and I've just fixed a dozen or so of those, but there are thousands to go. Many of the others just mapped funny hyphen-separated two-part titles to funny dash-separated two-part titles of the sort I'm inquiring about. What a mess. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
At WT:WikiProject Tennis#More discussion about dashes in sporting event titles I'm seeing pretty much a "tennis is special" argument about why they cap things like "Women's Doubles" when sources do not. Not to do with en dashes, but clearly contrary to MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe these dashed constructs should just be avoided, so we don't have to work the capitalization issue? Could do French Open women's doubles, for example, as is done in books. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Common Name is an officially policy regarding how (English) Wikipedia should title articles about subjects. There has been contention over the years about how the Wikipedia community should title individuals and whether their preferences should have any influence on its naming. As of right now, a person's preference is not a factor and the only factor what whether reliable sources refers to the individual. High profile debates regarding individuals name have included Hillary Clinton (formerly titled Hillary Rodham Clinton]]). This discussion is particularly pertaining to when an individual legally changes their name via court order, marriage or divorce. Should we allow an exception or create a new policy/guideline that titles articles based on the personal preference of the person and take in account life events such as legal name changes? The reason I would like to bring this up is because there does not seem to be much consistency about this, probably because WP:COMMONNAME is decided on a base by base case. Currently, there is contention regarding Kanye West and whether the page should reflect his new legal name of Ye ( here). This page has not been moved but it has been under discussion. This is comparable to other recent high profile name changes: Hailey Baldwin to Hailey Bieber, Melinda Gates to Melinda French Gates, MacKenzie Bezos to MacKenzie Scott, Facebook, Inc. to Meta Platforms, and other discussions in the past such as Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning. Some pages have been moved quicker than others, i.e. when it involves transgender individuals. Relevant topics related to this RfC are WP:NAMECHANGES, MOS:AT, MOS:BOLDLEAD, WP:SPNC, WP:NCP and MOS:DEADNAME. Any other editors who wanted to add any more relevant information and comments can below. Me opening this discussion should not be interpreted as support or opposition to any proposed changes. cookie monster 755 00:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I came across Qui Con Me (Ni De Se Cai 你的色彩), it's gotta be wrong, right? Abductive ( reasoning) 03:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This edit has deleted a closing strikethrough code. The edit has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 49. The consequence is to render a large part of the archive page essentially unreadable. I am replacing the code at the archive page and leaving this edit id as a comment for explanation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
this edit refers. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I am just taking part in a discussion where WP:CONSISTENT was brought forward as an argument and as I clicked on it I was surprised that to were I was led to, WP:CONSISTENT was not mentioned like WP:CRITERIA as a shortcut how to get to the section. Wouldn't it be helpful if WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CRITERIA be both mentioned as redirects in the section they lead to as redirects? At least for me it was confusing that WP:CONSISTENT wasn't mentioned, as I thought the editor misspelled. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a consensus convention around these terms? There has been a lot of moving recently, e.g. at WP:CFR/S. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Bottom line, such category moves are not suitable candidates for WP:CFR/S. Establish consensus via RM discussions first, then cats can easily follow their main articles. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It could look something like this:
It would allow searching for text in any pages starting with prefix "Wikipedia:Naming conventions". — andrybak ( talk) 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)