![]() | 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 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
The first thing I will do is try to determine what the point of this RfC was. It appeared to have been started after a discussion on a tennis tournament's talk page resulted in a consensus to sentence case subparts of a tennis tournament, which has resulted in an interested party coming here to harmonize the practices of capitalization after dashes with respect to a broader range of sporting events, as the closure of that move resulted in inconsistencies. This appears to have rapidly spiralled into a debate on whether or not dashes should be used at all in article titles on sport events. This has confused the RfC immensely as it has now become a debate on two separate issues instead of one. First, should dashes be used in article titles, and second, if we are allowing dashes, what is the correct capitalization of the text after them? I will try to evaluate both of these issues separately.
In terms of the "allowing dashes" issue, I will categorize participants into "pro-dash" and "anti-dash" as "Option E" is ambiguous in this RfC. Note that "pro-dash" does not mean forcing dashes on sports event articles, but refers to being in favour of allowing dashes in some way.
The main arguments of the anti-dashers are that dashes read unnaturally and inconsistent with other article titles in different subjects. Editors believe that non-dash options are generally superior to dashes in every case where a dash may be used in a sporting event title. Some editors have raised a number of arguments based on
WP:Article titles as well as claiming
WP:CONLEVEL doesn't allow for projects to create rules against sitewide guidelines. This seems questionable, since the point of this RfC is to discuss possible changes to the
WP:Article titles policy. If the usage of dashes in article titles went against
WP:Article titles, the appropriate place to discuss exemptions would be
WT:Article titles, which is where we are now.
The main arguments of the "pro-dashers" are numerous. The first main argument is the belief that we should follow the titling convention of reliable sources. This is a very compelling argument given Wikipedia's emphasis on sourcing, but others have brought up that the locus of this discussion is relating to subevents of larger sporting events and often these subevents do not necessarily have reliable sources that agree on titles. Dicklyon says deep in this discussion (in relation to all of the issues here) that "since sources don't use titles resembling these at all, and refer to them in a wide variety of ways", "follow the sources" is a misguided ideal. That being said, there seemed to be at least some agreement on this arcane point and "follow the sources" is something that has consensus in cases where sources agree on something.
The second argument from the "pro-dashers" is that there are a bunch of articles with very lengthy titles where removing the dash would cause them to become incomprehensible. The anti-dashers have proposed alternate titles for the specific examples given by
Sod25k, but have not addressed how the proposed rule of removing dashing would be generally implemented in those cases. This, in my opinion, is an important point that should be addressed before any broader rule change occurs.
The third argument is that this would be hell to deal with in templates. "Natural wording" will result in more inconsistency given that "main event" dashed with the "sub event" is a significant format.
Cinderella157 has created a section specifically for the template issues which can be summed up as "While I am not familiar with the language or syntax of templates, this is potentially an opportunity to improve the flexibility of the templates." I don't really see the appeal of this refutation as it didn't address how this potentially massive issue will be resolved and just proposed other people doing more work to fix the template issues.
The fourth argument is one that inconsistency is fine and that they'd like to leave it up to WikiProjects, and that creating a firm rule is busywork for the sake of busywork. This is embodied in
Thryduulf saying "I still fail to see any benefit from imposing a single rule for all occasions". This is an interesting argument, although not as compelling as the template/lengthy titles argument.
Based on the arguments made here, I will close by saying that dashes should be allowed for the future, based mainly on the fact there may be major practical issues to implementing a ban on dashes in sports event article titles that weren't addressed here by the anti-dashers. This was one of the most commonly cited beliefs among the pro-dashers and was not effectively refuted.
The capitalization debate is more painful to resolve as unlike the dashing debate its scope is unclear. It appears to me that option C would only be applicable to tennis, option B has an unclear breadth, and option A may be applicable to all sporting events. However, during the actual RfC itself, assumptions were made from those opposed to capitalization requirements that this would be widely applicable to all sporting events. The "background" section provides Luge as an example and the original question is vague as to whether this is a "tennis-only" RfC or not.
To try to resolve this, I will first say that there is no consensus for all sporting events. The RfC is sufficiently unclear that I don't see any consensus to mandate capitalization standards on all sporting events, and many !votes in favour of mandating a capitalization style appear to assume this will be a tennis specific rule. Likewise, many !votes oppose standardized requirements across all sporting events as a rule. If there is another RfC on this, it should be specifically focused only on capitalization and clearly delineate its applicability.
Secondly, I will say there is a consensus to let the editors in the tennis topic area decide the capitalization issue themselves, although it's unclear what that decision will be. The RfC's structure presupposes that it's OK to make guidelines for specific topic areas and appears to be focused on whether or not to harmonize tennis articles with an alleged broader consensus. Many !votes on the capitalization issue deal with a purely tennis perspective. Many "Option E" !voters also based their !votes on allowing for individual WikiProjects to make decisions on these issues, or generally believe these issues should be decided on a case by case basis. Only a few !voters seem to believe that the capitalization (or anti-dashing) rules proposed should be broadly applicable to all sporting events.
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)What is the most appropriate title style or pattern for articles with dash-separated two-part sports event titles such as 2014 US Open – Men's Singles? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Many two-part article titles, with parts separated by a spaced en dash, have title-case or sentence-case capitalization after the dash. In a sentence context, MOS:SENTENCECAPS suggests to not cap after a dash, but there's no guidance in a title context, where the usage is more like illustrated in MOS:LISTDASH, where again there's no capping after the dash. This RFC is to look at these and decide what to do about the style variations, particularly in the context of sporting events for now, since that's what most of them are (find more context re other areas, and discussion of capping in tennis titles, in a talk section further up this page).
Some titles are not capped after dash, consistent with MOS:CAPS:
But many have title-case or sentence-case subtitles after dash. Most sports mostly follow this sentence-case subtitle pattern:
Tennis articles usually have title case, with capped Singles and Doubles, in tennis-only events:
but not in Olympic and similar International games contexts:
The reasons for the capitalization variations don't seem to have much to do with WP's style guidance, and even the dashed two-part construct seems an unusual pattern per all the advice at WP:AT. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Possible resolutions to choose from, support, oppose, or comment on:
Dicklyon ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Background to forming this RfC An RM was opened at The Championships, Wimbledon to address inconsistent titles in some of the earliest events, with an initial proposal: 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles → 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (typical). The close ultimately determined: 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles → 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles (typical). The discussion did identify MOS:SENTENCECAPS as an issue but the closer made no specific comment WRT to this. A discussion was commenced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis concerning various title formatting issues, including the use of a dash delimiter and capitalisation, both generally and more specifically after a dash. A discussion was also held here, with a question as to what, if any guidance existed WRT capping in a dashed title. Looking at the discussions, the matter of dashed titles appears to be most prevalent in sports article. I am not certain, but within sports, my understanding would be that tennis is the most prevalent for that style (by article count)? More certainly, it is the more prevelent WRT the issue of capping after the dash. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The responses above show a clear super-majority in favor of some kind of case fixing (options A, B, and D), and a small minority in favor of doing nothing (C or E), so we should focus next on what's the best path forward. A number of editors favor the "natural" dashless form (D), while a similar number find that to be the worst approach (due mostly to the fact that it would be very hard to get right in general, for such a large and diverse set of pages, and wouldn't be compatible with a bunch of existing nav templates). So it seems to me that we need to choose between A and B. About half of respondents supported A, and nearly as many B (with different orders of preference). Personally, I prefer A, though I know B will be a lot less work.
The question really goes back to where I started in a section above: what is the intended function of the dashed two-part titles, and how should they be styled? It seems the main interpretation (at least in sporting events) is as a "subtitle", and some see that as justification for starting over "sentence case" after the dash; other point out that titles should be rendered as they would be in running text, and it would be unusual to see such capitalization (or dash) in running text.
Note that in lawn bowls the convention used on most is to treat the subevent as parenthetical disambiguation, as in Bowls England National Championships (Men's Fours), but still over-capitalized. It might be more logical as Men's four (Bowls England National Championships). Others, in the context of broader games, use the dash form, with various case variations, e.g. Lawn bowls at the 2010 Commonwealth Games – Women's triples. Several respondents mentioned parenthetical disambiguation as a possible improvement, so I'd like to see if there's more support for that, too.
So, I solicit here further comments that would help us converge on a consensus of the best way to move forward, particularly A vs B, but still open to alternatives. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't want takeaway (I'd rather eat in). Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there will be an issue with templates. I have a look at a couple of examples. Templates would be of two general types. For a particular event (year) they create links to the titles played for. For a particular title they create links to other titles played during a particular event. The latter are effectively sub-pages of an event page. In either case, the templates assume a particular article title format in order to generate the links. The templates will fail if there is no target article having the "assumed" article title format. However, this issue is easily remedied by ensuring there are redirects from the "assumed" article title format to the "actual" article title. I believe this already occurred for Wimbledon tennis championships that used "ladies" and "gentlemen" instead of "men's" and "women's" for titles. It is a simple solution to what might otherwise be perceived as a near insurmountable problem. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I have only looked at a couple of tennis templates but would make these observations. These are not "smart" templates that rely on recognising a dashed construction to generate an infobox - they simply assume such a construction and capitalisation. Consequently, any change whatsoever to "any" part of a "standard" title format will require a revision of such templates at the template level. They lack flexibility. While I am not familiar with the language or syntax of templates, this is potentially an opportunity to improve the flexibility of the templates. The issue is not a matter of parsing that is reliant on a dashed construction. Secondly, these templates are not the ducks nuts. Specifically, they create red-links for titles played for that don't appear to exist - such as invitation or masters titles. The templates are not being applied to "acknowledge" para titles being played for. However, this is not a deficiency in the templates per se but in how they are being applied. Any change can be seen as an opportunity for improvement and an opportunity to make such templates more resilient. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm creating a new subsection here so that stuff not relating to templates can move forward, and the conversation regarding templates can continue in that section. Herostratus ( talk) 07:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
So let's see, counting heads as of this date, we have, as a first choice:
Lot of editors gave a second choice, and these are:
And, five editors opposing D.
C got no traction, and there were three E votes that weren't "do nothing" were for one-vote proposals: 1 for parents, 1 for following sources, 1 unclear. Let's promote those editors' second choices (or drop them if there wasn't one)
Since D has 7 first choices (and no second), but five explicit opposes... I can't see D as going forward since it has essentially a "net vote" of 2. Five editors really don't want D, and I think it would be pretty divisive to go forward with that. (The D voters will object to that, but what can you do? Ignore the editors who specifically called out D to say they hate it?) So, also discarding D and promoting those editors second choices, we get:
First choice:
Second choice:
I can see a couple of ways to cut this cake, assuming you're even still on board with me here:
1) Combine A + B into "Do Something", giving "Do Something" 11+4 vs "Do Nothing" 6+1. Counting just first choices gives 65% to "Do Something", which with 17 people involved, I suppose that could count as a win, barely. Then, "A" having 7+2 vs "B" having 4+2, well, "A" is 7-4 among first choices (which are what mainly count), which is 64%... which 64% of 11 people doesn't mean much I'd say. Others may think it does. In this way you could either anoint "A" the winner, or run another RfC, "A" vs "B".
2) Drop B since it's the weakest of the three. Promoting "B" voters second choices (if any) adds one to "A" and one to "Do Nothing", giving First choice:
Second choices are no longer in play. 8-7 is a tie.
None of this considers strength of arguments, but what can I say? Nobody has a killer argument that I see. C'mon, it's a matter of opinion basically. If your argument is that good, it'll probably convince other people and you'll win the headcount anyway. If you're not changing people's minds, either your argument is maybe not as strong at you think, or else it really is a matter of opinion and arguments don't much matter.
So, these multi-choice RfC usually don't end with a clear "winner" and aren't so much intended to as to just generally be discussions, and also to narrow the field. I suppose the next step would be to have a new, binary, RfC, which will I guess could take the form of "A" vs "Do Nothing" (I reccomend this as simpler). (The annoying is that if "A" has 13 votes and "Do Nothing" has 10 votes, "Do Nothing" wins, since no consensus == no change. Oh well.)
or you could have something like:
If "A" is a clear win, then you see if "A1" is clear win over "A2" or vice versa; if so, Bob's your uncle, if not you're screwed, and I have no idea what you'd do. Herostratus ( talk) 07:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
First off, as you note, consensus is not built on headcount (or single transferrable vote) but on strength of argument; you also acknowledge that you are completely disregarding this in your unhelpful attempt to steer this discussion – plus we have Dicklyon's steering above. Second, many of the !votes above (including your own) directly contradict policy and existing guidelines, so very little weight can be given to them. wjemather please leave a message... 10:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
My working for the above comment. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1st preference:
2nd preference:
Oppose:
E: 0
Notes:
|
Defining the issues As with many RfCs, the issues become clearer as the discussion unfolds. As I see matters, there are now two clear issues:
Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
is a sequence of one or more characters for specifying the boundary between separate, independent regions in plain text, mathematical expressions or other data streams.In this case, I am referring to a dash, which is separating a title from a subtitle or the "main" part of the title from its disambiguation. Your comment per:
If you start saying everything is a disambiguation delimiter, instead of "2021 Australian Open" we'll have to start using Australian Open (2021) and George Washington (farewell address).It makes no sense to me since it appears to not understand what a delimiter is. To me, it seems to be a red-herring argument. If you were to read my !vote (in full), I have already directly quoted the particular text that is an explicate statement not to use a dash as a disambiguation delimiter. It is at WP:QUALIFIER (in WP:AT):
Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.I have also identified at my !vote, other "levels" at which the dash construction is contrary to P&G, particularly at WP:AT. A significant number of editors have specifically identified that the dash is separating terms in a title with the function of providing disambiguation. The subtitle perception of the construction is also dealt with by the afore quote. A colon (and only a colon) is permitted in the
subtitles of some creative works. We are not dealing with a creative work here and a dash is not a colon! Per WP:COMMONNAME at WP:AT:
In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article. A dashed construction is not a ""natural expression" Consequently, we don't rely on "titles" and headings in sources using such a construction to determine a WP article title. The weight of P&G (particularly WP:AT - a policy) would determine that the dashed construction, the subject of this discussion, is not to be used on a number of levels. To argue otherwise would appear to me to be pettifogging. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
to separate a disambiguating term in an article title? Cinderella157 ( talk) 14:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article ... that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). If you are trying to say that the dashed construction is commonly used in prose (natural language) in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources, then show the evidence. Most often, you are seeing things like: "Highlights of Wimbledon Championships men's singles final". As to what WP:AT says on using a dash as a disamiguation separating character, I think it is self-evident. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
It is also very often seen as 2019 Wimbledon Men's Singles event.I have looked quite hard to find evidence of the dashed construction in prose. I'm not finding anything; though, I am seeing it in headings and tables etc. Even then, I'm not seeing it consistently capitalised either in full or in part.
Herostratus, given that you have stated: Nobody has a killer argument that I see.
Have you seen my revised !vote and the reasons I have given overall?
Cinderella157 (
talk)
09:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not a headcount, but it is basically a matter of opinion, and if you don't want to count heads, then it has to be "no change" since opinions can't really have strength of argument.[per yourself herein] Except it isn't? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Is the spaced dashed creating a subtitle/disambiguation? To my observation of the discussion herein, it is. It has specifically been referred to as such. With the exception of perhaps Fyunck, it has been at least tacitly acknowledged as such. In templates, it is being used as such. However, I am now specifically asking this question. This relates to matters of policy at WP:AT. For details, see my !vote (second down - please read in full) and the discussion immediately above ( #Defining the issues). If it is not creating a subtitle/disambiguation, then what is the function of the dash? Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments
If it is not creating a subtitle/disambiguation, then what is the function of the dash?That is the substantive question. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
now that there is precedent to change the capitalization, I will support your RFC. And you state:
I would not single out sports articles by any stretch. The latter widens the scope and determines a central venue. You certainly played a role (ie were instrumental) in bringing the RfC here. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Background
Where are we now
It's not a headcount, but it is basically a matter of opinion, and if you don't want to count heads, then it has to be "no change" since opinions can't really have strength of argument.While most of the !votes are substantially just opinion, there are some that are based in P&G.
word salad. Regardless of whichever titling option is applied, such titles should be improved.
Where to from here
1. As previously identified, the status quo (option C) is untenable as an outcome from this RfC. However, there is no clear alternative outcome from this particular RfC. The closer will consequently need to guide the direction forward.
2. Do we proceed forward with a new RfC trying to reach a central decision on the issue of capitalisation in a dashed construction - this being the initial premise of this RfC.
3. Do we cease trying to resolve this centrally (ie revert to a more project specific approach).
4. Given the number of articles that appear to use the dashed construction and that such a construction appears quite contrary to P&G, can we simply ignore that?
Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Dicklyon, Cinderella157, Fyunck(click), Wjemather, Lee Vilenski, Amakuru, Ravenswing, Sod25k, Sportsfan77777, Joseph2302, Jayron32, GhostOfDanGurney, Iffy, GraemeLeggett, Mjquinn_id, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Tony1, Montanabw, Kaffe42, BilledMammal, Herostratus, Thryduulf, SmokeyJoe, HawkAussie - you have contributed to this RfC by offering a !vote in the initial section. You may be interested in contributing to further discussion immediately below. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see this section (above) for an assessment/summary. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Avoiding work is not a compelling reason.I don't see anybody actually saying P&G "allow flexibility in these matters". One can WP:IAR but not on the basis of "I don't like it" or "I like this better". There needs to be good objective reasons. Policy tends to be quite firm and WP:AT is a policy. You might see WP:PG and WP:IARMEANS. If the dashed construction is such a good idea, one should be able to convince others to change the policy to permit it. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm too old & too confused, as to what direction this RFC has taken. All I ask is that we use english in the titles. GoodDay ( talk) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Just noting to anyone reading this that Cinderella157 moved one of my comments to make it look like I was disagreeing with GoodDay, when I was in fact criticizing Cinderella157's distorted summary above. I moved my comment back to the correct place, and put a strikethrough where Cinderella157 moved my comment. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 07:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Pls put comments in comments section. I believe that to be reasonably consistent with policy on the matter though I acknowledge that I might have done that better. If GoodDay misunderstood the "result", I took steps at their TP to remedy this. You reverted my move with the comment
please don't edit others' comments, Cinderella157. Yes, I have removed your edits to my comment/assessment (above) with the edit summary
Please don't edit others' comments, User:Sportsfan77777. I actually moved your edit to the correct place with the dot point in place so that it was a first level comment.This has all started with you editing another's comments. I welcome your comments but I would expect you treat others with the same courtesy that you would expect. To not do so is hypocrisy. Please fix this. Your comments are welcome (but in the right place), even if I disagree with them. Then, with the consent of GoodDay and Fyunck(click) (who have contributed to this thread), I would be happy to strike this whole section. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
These patterns, with years prefixed to them, about 5000 articles with the opercapped "Singles" and "Doubles". I think they're pretty much all tennis, but haven't verified that carefully. The ones with "Singles" or "Doubles" immediately after the dash, without "Men's" or "Women's" or whatever, can be left as-is. I'll make a filtered list of article titles and ask for a bot to move them after we establish consensus. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
List of articles, with year prefixes removed
|
---|
* ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament – Wheelchair Doubles * ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament – Wheelchair Singles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * ASB Classic – Men's Doubles * ASB Classic – Men's Singles * ASB Classic – Women's Doubles * ASB Classic – Women's Singles * ATP Challenger China International – Nanchang – Doubles * ATP Challenger China International – Nanchang – Singles * ATP China International Tennis Challenge – Anning – Doubles * ATP China International Tennis Challenge – Anning – Singles * Aberto da República – Men's Doubles * Aberto da República – Men's Singles * Aberto da República – Women's Doubles * Aberto da República – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Men's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Men's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Men's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Men's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Men's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Men's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano de Tenis Telefonica Movistar – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano de Tenis Telefonica Movistar – Women's Singles * Adelaide International 1 – Men's Doubles * Adelaide International 1 – Men's Singles * Adelaide International 1 – Women's Doubles * Adelaide International 1 – Women's Singles * Adelaide International – Men's Doubles * Adelaide International – Men's Singles * Adelaide International – Women's Doubles * Adelaide International – Women's Singles * Adidas International – Men's Doubles * Adidas International – Men's Singles * Adidas International – Women's Doubles * Adidas International – Women's Singles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Men's Doubles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Men's Singles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Women's Doubles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Women's Singles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Men's Doubles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Men's Singles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Women's Doubles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Women's Singles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Men's Doubles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Men's Singles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Women's Doubles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Women's Singles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Men's Doubles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Men's Singles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Women's Doubles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Women's Singles * Aegon International – Men's Doubles * Aegon International – Men's Singles * Aegon International – Women's Doubles * Aegon International – Women's Singles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Men's Doubles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Men's Singles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Women's Doubles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Women's Singles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Men's Doubles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Men's Singles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Women's Doubles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Women's Singles * Aegon Trophy – Men's Doubles * Aegon Trophy – Men's Singles * Aegon Trophy – Women's Doubles * Aegon Trophy – Women's Singles * American Express – TED Open – Doubles * American Express – TED Open – Singles * Anning Open – Men's Doubles * Anning Open – Men's Singles * Anning Open – Women's Doubles * Anning Open – Women's Singles * Antonio Savoldi–Marco Cò – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Doubles * Antonio Savoldi–Marco Cò – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Singles * Apia International Sydney – Men's Doubles * Apia International Sydney – Men's Singles * Apia International Sydney – Women's Doubles * Apia International Sydney – Women's Singles * Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Doubles * Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Singles * Astana Open – Men's Doubles * Astana Open – Men's Singles * Astana Open – Women's Doubles * Astana Open – Women's Singles * Australasian Championships – Men's Doubles * Australasian Championships – Men's Singles * Australasian Championships – Mixed Doubles * Australasian Championships – Women's Doubles * Australasian Championships – Women's Singles * Australian Championships – Men's Doubles * Australian Championships – Men's Singles * Australian Championships – Mixed Doubles * Australian Championships – Women's Doubles * Australian Championships – Women's Singles * Australian Open (December) – Men's Doubles * Australian Open (December) – Men's Singles * Australian Open (December) – Women's Doubles * Australian Open (December) – Women's Singles * Australian Open (January) – Men's Doubles * Australian Open (January) – Men's Singles * Australian Open (January) – Women's Doubles * Australian Open (January) – Women's Singles * Australian Open – Boys' Doubles * Australian Open – Boys' Singles * Australian Open – Girls' Doubles * Australian Open – Girls' Singles * Australian Open – Men's Doubles * Australian Open – Men's Legends' Doubles * Australian Open – Men's Singles * Australian Open – Mixed Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Women's Singles * Australian Open – Women's Doubles * Australian Open – Women's Legends Doubles * Australian Open – Women's Legends' Doubles * Australian Open – Women's Singles * BNP Paribas Open – Men's Doubles * BNP Paribas Open – Men's Singles * BNP Paribas Open – Women's Doubles * BNP Paribas Open – Women's Singles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles * Beijing International Challenger – Men's Doubles * Beijing International Challenger – Men's Singles * Beijing International Challenger – Women's Doubles * Beijing International Challenger – Women's Singles * Belgrade Challenger – Men's Doubles * Belgrade Challenger – Men's Singles * Belgrade Challenger – Women's Doubles * Belgrade Challenger – Women's Singles * Bendigo International – Men's Doubles * Bendigo International – Men's Singles * Bendigo International – Women's Singles * Benson & Hedges Centennial Open – Men's Singles * Brasil Open – Men's Doubles * Brasil Open – Men's Singles * Brisbane International – Men's Doubles * Brisbane International – Men's Singles * Brisbane International – Women's Doubles * Brisbane International – Women's Singles * British Hard Court Championships – Men's Singles * Burnie International – Men's Doubles * Burnie International – Men's Singles * Burnie International – Women's Doubles * Burnie International – Women's Singles * Camparini Gioielli Cup – Trofeo Pompea – Doubles * Camparini Gioielli Cup – Trofeo Pompea – Singles * Canadian Open – Men's Doubles * Canadian Open – Men's Singles * Canadian Open – Women's Doubles * Canadian Open – Women's Singles * Canberra Tennis International – Men's Doubles * Canberra Tennis International – Men's Singles * Canberra Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Canberra Tennis International – Women's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Men's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Men's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Women's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Women's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Men's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Men's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Women's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Women's Singles * China Open – Men's Doubles * China Open – Men's Singles * China Open – Mixed Doubles * China Open – Women's Doubles * China Open – Women's Singles * Cincinnati Open – Men's Singles * Citi Open – Men's Doubles * Citi Open – Men's Singles * Citi Open – Women's Doubles * Citi Open – Women's Singles * Città di Vercelli – Trofeo Multimed – Doubles * Città di Vercelli – Trofeo Multimed – Singles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Men's Doubles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Men's Singles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Women's Doubles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Women's Singles * City of Playford Tennis International – Men's Doubles * City of Playford Tennis International – Men's Singles * Claro Open Medellín – Men's Doubles * Claro Open Medellín – Men's Singles * Columbus Challenger – Men's Doubles * Columbus Challenger – Men's Singles * Columbus Challenger – Women's Doubles * Columbus Challenger – Women's Singles * Compaq Grand Slam Cup – Men's Singles * Compaq Grand Slam Cup – Women's Singles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – San Sebastián – Doubles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – San Sebastián – Singles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – Vigo – Doubles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – Vigo – Singles * Darwin Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Darwin Tennis International – Women's Singles * Delhi Open – Men's Doubles * Delhi Open – Men's Singles * Delhi Open – Women's Doubles * Delhi Open – Women's Singles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Dunlop World Challenge – Men's Doubles * Dunlop World Challenge – Men's Singles * Dunlop World Challenge – Women's Doubles * Dunlop World Challenge – Women's Singles * ECM Prague Open – Men's Doubles * ECM Prague Open – Men's Singles * ECM Prague Open – Women's Doubles * ECM Prague Open – Women's Singles * Eastbourne International – Men's Doubles * Eastbourne International – Men's Singles * Eastbourne International – Women's Doubles * Eastbourne International – Women's Singles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Men's Doubles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Men's Singles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Women's Doubles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Women's Singles * Ericsson Open – Men's Doubles * Ericsson Open – Men's Singles * Ericsson Open – Women's Doubles * Ericsson Open – Women's Singles * Estoril Open – Men's Doubles * Estoril Open – Men's Singles * Estoril Open – Women's Doubles * Estoril Open – Women's Singles * Fergana Challenger – Men's Doubles * Fergana Challenger – Men's Singles * Fergana Challenger – Women's Doubles * Fergana Challenger – Women's Singles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * French Championships – Men's Doubles * French Championships – Men's Singles * French Championships – Seniors Over 40 Singles * French Championships – Women's Doubles * French Championships – Women's Singles * French Covered Court Championships – Men's Singles * French Open – Boys' Doubles * French Open – Boys' Singles * French Open – Girls' Doubles * French Open – Girls' Singles * French Open – Legends Over 45 Doubles * French Open – Legends Under 45 Doubles * French Open – Men's Doubles * French Open – Men's Singles * French Open – Mixed Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles * French Open – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles * French Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Women's Singles * French Open – Women's Doubles * French Open – Women's Legends Doubles * French Open – Women's Singles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Men's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Men's Singles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Women's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Women's Singles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Men's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Men's Singles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Women's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Women's Singles * Hamburg European Open – Men's Doubles * Hamburg European Open – Men's Singles * Hamburg European Open – Women's Doubles * Hamburg European Open – Women's Singles * Heineken Trophy – Men's Doubles * Heineken Trophy – Men's Singles * Heineken Trophy – Women's Doubles * Heineken Trophy – Women's Singles * Holden NSW Open – Men's Doubles * Holden NSW Open – Men's Singles * Hua Hin Championships – Men's Doubles * Hua Hin Championships – Men's Singles * Hua Hin Championships – Women's Doubles * Hua Hin Championships – Women's Singles * Hungarian International Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * I.ČLTK Prague Open – Men's Doubles * I.ČLTK Prague Open – Men's Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Baotou – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Baotou – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Sanya – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Sanya – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen Longhua – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen Longhua – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Suzhou – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Suzhou – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wenshan – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wenshan – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wuhan – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wuhan – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xi'an – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xi'an – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xuzhou – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xuzhou – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Yakima – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Yakima – Singles * ITF Women's World Tennis Tour – Bellinzona – Doubles * ITF Women's World Tennis Tour – Bellinzona – Singles * Idea Prokom Open – Men's Doubles * Idea Prokom Open – Men's Singles * Idea Prokom Open – Women's Doubles * Idea Prokom Open – Women's Singles * Ilkley Trophy – Men's Doubles * Ilkley Trophy – Men's Singles * Ilkley Trophy – Women's Doubles * Ilkley Trophy – Women's Singles * Indian Wells Masters – Men's Doubles * Indian Wells Masters – Men's Singles * Indian Wells Masters – Women's Doubles * Indian Wells Masters – Women's Singles * Internationaux du Doubs – Open de Franche-Comté – Doubles * Internationaux du Doubs – Open de Franche-Comté – Singles * Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Men's Doubles * Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Men's Singles * Internazionali di Tennis di Manerbio – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Doubles * Internazionali di Tennis di Manerbio – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Singles * Italian Open – Men's Doubles * Italian Open – Men's Singles * Italian Open – Women's Doubles * Italian Open – Women's Singles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Jin'an Open – Women's Doubles * Jin'an Open – Women's Singles * Jinan International Open – Men's Doubles * Jinan International Open – Men's Singles * Jinan International Open – Women's Doubles * Jinan International Open – Women's Singles * Kazan Summer Cup – Men's Doubles * Kazan Summer Cup – Men's Singles * Kazan Summer Cup – Women's Doubles * Kazan Summer Cup – Women's Singles * Keio Challenger – Men's Doubles * Keio Challenger – Men's Singles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Kremlin Cup – Men's Doubles * Kremlin Cup – Men's Singles * Kremlin Cup – Women's Doubles * Kremlin Cup – Women's Singles * Kroger St. Jude International – Men's Doubles * Kroger St. Jude International – Men's Singles * Kroger St. Jude International – Women's Doubles * Kroger St. Jude International – Women's Singles * Kunming Open – Men's Doubles * Kunming Open – Men's Singles * Kunming Open – Women's Doubles * Kunming Open – Women's Singles * Launceston International – Men's Doubles * Launceston International – Men's Singles * Launceston Tennis International – Men's Doubles * Launceston Tennis International – Men's Singles * Launceston Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Launceston Tennis International – Women's Singles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Men's Doubles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Men's Singles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Women's Doubles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Women's Singles * Lipton Championships – Men's Doubles * Lipton Championships – Men's Singles * Lipton Championships – Women's Doubles * Lipton Championships – Women's Singles * Lipton International Players Championships – Men's Doubles * Lipton International Players Championships – Men's Singles * Lipton International Players Championships – Women's Doubles * Lipton International Players Championships – Women's Singles * Lisboa Belém Open – Men's Doubles * Lisboa Belém Open – Men's Singles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Men's Doubles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Men's Singles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Women's Doubles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Women's Singles * Liuzhou Open – Men's Doubles * Liuzhou Open – Men's Singles * Liuzhou Open – Women's Doubles * Liuzhou Open – Women's Singles * Manta Open – Trofeo Ricardo Delgado Aray – Doubles * Manta Open – Trofeo Ricardo Delgado Aray – Singles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Men's Doubles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Men's Singles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Women's Doubles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Women's Singles * McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Doubles * McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Singles * McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Doubles * McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles * Medibank International Sydney – Men's Doubles * Medibank International Sydney – Men's Singles * Medibank International Sydney – Women's Doubles * Medibank International Sydney – Women's Singles * Medibank International – Men's Doubles * Medibank International – Men's Singles * Medibank International – Women's Doubles * Medibank International – Women's Singles * Melbourne Summer Set 1 – Men's Doubles * Melbourne Summer Set 1 – Men's Singles * Melbourne Summer Set 1 – Women's Singles * Miami Open – Men's Doubles * Miami Open – Men's Singles * Miami Open – Women's Doubles * Miami Open – Women's Singles * Morelos Open – Men's Doubles * Morelos Open – Men's Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca II – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca II – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Kenitra – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Kenitra – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Marrakech – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Marrakech – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Meknes – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Meknes – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Rabat – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Rabat – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Tanger – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Tanger – Singles * Mubadala World Tennis Championship – Men's Singles * Murray Trophy – Glasgow – Doubles * Murray Trophy – Glasgow – Singles * Mutua Madrid Open – Men's Doubles * Mutua Madrid Open – Men's Singles * Mutua Madrid Open – Women's Doubles * Mutua Madrid Open – Women's Singles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Men's Doubles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Men's Singles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Women's Doubles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Women's Singles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Men's Doubles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Men's Singles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Women's Doubles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Women's Singles * National Bank Open – Men's Doubles * National Bank Open – Men's Singles * National Bank Open – Women's Doubles * National Bank Open – Women's Singles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Men's Doubles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Men's Singles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Women's Singles * New South Wales Open – Men's Doubles * New South Wales Open – Men's Singles * New South Wales Open – Women's Doubles * New South Wales Open – Women's Singles * New Zealand Open – Men's Singles * Ningbo Challenger – Men's Doubles * Ningbo Challenger – Men's Singles * Ningbo Challenger – Women's Doubles * Ningbo Challenger – Women's Singles * Nokia Open – Men's Doubles * Nokia Open – Men's Singles * Nokia Open – Women's Doubles * Nokia Open – Women's Singles * Nottingham Challenge – Men's Doubles * Nottingham Challenge – Men's Singles * Nottingham Challenge – Women's Doubles * Nottingham Challenge – Women's Singles * Nottingham Open – Men's Doubles * Nottingham Open – Men's Singles * Nottingham Open – Women's Doubles * Nottingham Open – Women's Singles * Nottingham Trophy – Men's Doubles * Nottingham Trophy – Men's Singles * Nottingham Trophy – Women's Doubles * Nottingham Trophy – Women's Singles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Men's Doubles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Men's Singles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Women's Doubles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Women's Singles * OTB International Open – Men's Doubles * OTB International Open – Men's Singles * OTB Open – Men's Doubles * OTB Open – Men's Singles * OTB Open – Women's Doubles * OTB Open – Women's Singles * OTB Schenectady Open – Men's Doubles * OTB Schenectady Open – Men's Singles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Men's Doubles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Men's Singles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Women's Doubles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Women's Singles * Open Barletta – Città della Disfida – Doubles * Open Barletta – Città della Disfida – Singles * Open Castilla y León – Men's Doubles * Open Castilla y León – Men's Singles * Open Costa Adeje – Isla de Tenerife – Doubles * Open Costa Adeje – Isla de Tenerife – Singles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Men's Doubles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Men's Singles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Women's Doubles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Women's Singles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Men's Doubles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Men's Singles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Women's Doubles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Women's Singles * Ordina Open – Men's Doubles * Ordina Open – Men's Singles * Ordina Open – Women's Doubles * Ordina Open – Women's Singles * Pacific Life Open – Men's Doubles * Pacific Life Open – Men's Singles * Pacific Life Open – Women's Doubles * Pacific Life Open – Women's Singles * Peters International – Men's Doubles * Peters International – Men's Singles * Peters International – Women's Doubles * Peters International – Women's Singles * Peters NSW Open – Men's Singles * Peters NSW Open – Women's Doubles * Peters NSW Open – Women's Singles * Pilot Pen International – Men's Doubles * Pilot Pen International – Men's Singles * Pilot Pen International – Women's Doubles * Pilot Pen International – Women's Singles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Men's Doubles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Men's Singles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Women's Doubles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Women's Singles * Pingshan Open – Men's Doubles * Pingshan Open – Men's Singles * Pingshan Open – Women's Doubles * Pingshan Open – Women's Singles * Player's Canadian Open – Men's Singles * Player's Canadian Open – Women's Doubles * Player's Canadian Open – Women's Singles * Portugal Open – Men's Doubles * Portugal Open – Men's Singles * Portugal Open – Women's Doubles * Portugal Open – Women's Singles * President's Cup (tennis) – Men's Doubles * President's Cup (tennis) – Men's Singles * President's Cup (tennis) – Women's Doubles * President's Cup (tennis) – Women's Singles * President's Cup – Men's Doubles * President's Cup – Men's Singles * President's Cup – Women's Doubles * President's Cup – Women's Singles * Queen's Club Championships – Men's Doubles * Queen's Club Championships – Men's Singles * Queen's Club Championships – Wheelchair Doubles * Queen's Club Championships – Wheelchair Singles * Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles * Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles * Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles * Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles * Ricoh Open – Men's Doubles * Ricoh Open – Men's Singles * Ricoh Open – Women's Doubles * Ricoh Open – Women's Singles * Rio Open – Men's Doubles * Rio Open – Men's Singles * Rio Open – Women's Doubles * Rio Open – Women's Singles * Ritro Slovak Open – Men's Doubles * Ritro Slovak Open – Men's Singles * Ritro Slovak Open – Women's Doubles * Ritro Slovak Open – Women's Singles * Rogers Cup – Men's Doubles * Rogers Cup – Men's Singles * Rogers Cup – Women's Doubles * Rogers Cup – Women's Singles * Rogers Masters – Men's Doubles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Men's Doubles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Men's Singles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Women's Doubles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Women's Singles * Samsung Securities Cup – Men's Doubles * Samsung Securities Cup – Men's Singles * Samsung Securities Cup – Women's Doubles * Samsung Securities Cup – Women's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Bogotá – Men's Doubles * Seguros Bolívar Open Bogotá – Men's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Bogotá – Women's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Men's Doubles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Men's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Women's Doubles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Women's Singles * Serbia Open – Men's Doubles * Serbia Open – Men's Singles * Serbia Open – Women's Doubles * Serbia Open – Women's Singles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Men's Doubles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Men's Singles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Women's Doubles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Women's Singles * Slovak Open – Men's Doubles * Slovak Open – Men's Singles * Slovak Open – Women's Doubles * Slovak Open – Women's Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Boys' Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Girls' Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Men's Doubles * Sony Ericsson Open – Men's Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Women's Doubles * Sony Ericsson Open – Women's Singles * Sony Open Tennis – Men's Doubles * Sony Open Tennis – Men's Singles * Sony Open Tennis – Women's Doubles * Sony Open Tennis – Women's Singles * South American Open – Men's Singles * South Australian Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Soweto Open – Men's Doubles * Soweto Open – Men's Singles * Soweto Open – Women's Doubles * Soweto Open – Women's Singles * Stockholm Open – Men's Doubles * Stockholm Open – Men's Singles * Stockton Challenger – Men's Doubles * Stockton Challenger – Men's Singles * Stockton Challenger – Women's Doubles * Stockton Challenger – Women's Singles * Strabag Prague Open – Men's Doubles * Strabag Prague Open – Men's Singles * Strabag Prague Open – Women's Doubles * Strabag Prague Open – Women's Singles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Surbiton Trophy – Men's Doubles * Surbiton Trophy – Men's Singles * Surbiton Trophy – Women's Doubles * Surbiton Trophy – Women's Singles * Swedish Open – Men's Doubles * Swedish Open – Men's Singles * Swedish Open – Women's Doubles * Swedish Open – Women's Singles * Sydney International – Men's Doubles * Sydney International – Men's Singles * Sydney International – Women's Doubles * Sydney International – Women's Singles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Men's Doubles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Men's Singles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Women's Doubles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Women's Singles * TEAN International – Men's Doubles * TEAN International – Men's Singles * TEAN International – Women's Doubles * TEAN International – Women's Singles * Tampere Open – Men's Doubles * Tampere Open – Men's Singles * Tampere Open – Women's Doubles * Tampere Open – Women's Singles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Men's Doubles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Men's Singles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Women's Doubles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Women's Singles * Tianjin Health Industry Park – Men's Singles * Topshelf Open – Men's Doubles * Topshelf Open – Men's Singles * Topshelf Open – Women's Doubles * Topshelf Open – Women's Singles * Traralgon International – Men's Doubles * Traralgon International – Men's Singles * Traralgon International – Women's Doubles * Traralgon International – Women's Singles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Men's Doubles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Men's Singles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Women's Doubles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Women's Singles * U.S. National Championships – Men's Doubles * U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles * U.S. National Championships – Women's Doubles * U.S. National Championships – Women's Singles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * U.S. Professional Indoor – Men's Singles * UNICEF Open – Men's Doubles * UNICEF Open – Men's Singles * UNICEF Open – Women's Doubles * UNICEF Open – Women's Singles * US Open – Boys' Doubles * US Open – Boys' Singles * US Open – Girls' Doubles * US Open – Girls' Singles * US Open – Men's Doubles * US Open – Men's Singles * US Open – Mixed Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles * US Open – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles * US Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Women's Singles * US Open – Women's Doubles * US Open – Women's Singles * Uruguay Open – Men's Doubles * Uruguay Open – Men's Singles * Uruguay Open – Women's Doubles * Uruguay Open – Women's Singles * Volvo Open – Men's Doubles * Volvo Open – Men's Singles * Volvo Open – Women's Doubles * Volvo Open – Women's Singles * Western & Southern Open – Men's Doubles * Western & Southern Open – Men's Singles * Western & Southern Open – Women's Doubles * Western & Southern Open – Women's Singles * Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Men's Doubles * Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Quad Doubles * Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Women's Doubles * Wheelchair Tennis Masters – Men's Singles * Wheelchair Tennis Masters – Quad Singles * Wheelchair Tennis Masters – Women's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Boys' Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Boys' Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Invitation Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Men's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Mixed Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Senior Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Men's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Quad Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Women's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Women's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Men's Doubles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Men's Singles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Women's Doubles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Women's Singles * World Hard Court Championships – Men's Doubles * World Hard Court Championships – Men's Singles * World Hard Court Championships – Mixed Doubles * World Hard Court Championships – Women's Doubles * World Hard Court Championships – Women's Singles * Zagreb Open – Men's Doubles * Zagreb Open – Men's Singles * Zagreb Open – Women's Doubles * Zagreb Open – Women's Singles * Zhuhai Open – Men's Doubles * Zhuhai Open – Men's Singles * Zhuhai Open – Women's Doubles * Zhuhai Open – Women's Singles * du Maurier Open – Men's Doubles * du Maurier Open – Men's Singles * du Maurier Open – Women's Doubles * du Maurier Open – Women's Singles |
@ Chess: Thanks for closing this complicated mess. But I have to ask why you say "there is a consensus to let the editors in the tennis topic area decide the capitalization issue themselves". It seemed to me that a majority of respondents had good policy and guideline based reasons to want to fix the over-capitalization that appears on some (but not all) of the tennis pages. Where are you seeing a consensus to let that project keep it this messy way that they claim is based on a compromise with the multi-sport project? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Hi @
Chess: this RfC was never about creating new rules but a ruling on the application of existing "rules" in a particular circumstance. There was never any particular proposal on the table for a change to
WP:AT. The possibility of a change to that policy was only raised three days ago. This RfC started with the good faith assumption that the dash was a permitted construction. The issue of permissibility was only identified quite late and
WP:AT is quite prescriptive in this regard. Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another ...
and Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.
The close states that dashes should be allowed for the future
, but it also states there is no consensus to ban dashes in sports event titles
. Where does the close stand in regard to this inconsistency with
WP:AT? Can (or should) we consider a proposal that would make the dashed construction for sports event titles acceptable within WP:AT or is the close saying we should just ignore this. Regards,
Cinderella157 (
talk)
02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
04:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)In reference to the quote in the close: "While I am not familiar with the language or syntax of templates, this is potentially an opportunity to improve the flexibility of the templates."
and the conclusion drawn by the close: I don't really see the appeal of this refutation as it didn't address how this potentially massive issue will be resolved and just proposed other people doing more work to fix the template issues.
I proposed a solution that did not require a change to templates and did not advocate for a change that would necessitate a change to templates. The quote was in the context of existing problems with the templates - if that course was chosen. If the close has a valid conclusion to make in regard to the template issue, it should be able to be made without misrepresenting what I have said. If the close has an invalid conclusion on the matter, it should definitely not be made by misrepresenting what I have said. Either way, the misrepresentation is the issue and misrepresentation is a matter of
WP:CIVILITY.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
09:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we update the page, specifically WP:COMMONNAME to reflect the guidelines in WP:GENDERID and MOS:GENDERID? At the moment, the COMMONNAME section doesn't explicitly say what to do in cases where the common name isn't what the person's own name was and thus leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. For example, in cases where the majority of sources report a person's name to be X and use the name X for them, though noting they were transgender and called themselves Y, COMMONNAME has been used to argue for continuing to call them X. Since COMMONNAME is a policy, unlike the gender related style guides, it's been argued it overrides considerations of their gender identity. While there are many references to checking the applicable guidelines in specific cases, I think that an explicit reference to cases of trans people and the appropriate guides would help Wikipedia. TheTranarchist ( talk) 16:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." and "
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.(bold mine) Policy already establishes several broad exceptions for not strictly obeying the "use the most common name available in reliable sources" guidance. Deadnaming a transgendered person who has changed their name to match their gender is "inaccurate", and it's perfectly allowable by policy to use the accurate name. I'm not sure we need more than that. -- Jayron 32 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Subcat guideline § Naming convention. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
21:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently discovered the article Raleigh murders. I am not sure this is an appropriate title given that many murders have happened in that city and the sources are not referring to these killings under this naming convention consistently. Not really sure what the topic should be called. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Should we, in deciding whether to use a natural disambiguation, give extra weight to how natural the consequent names are (per WP:CRITERIA)? Should we give extra weight to official names? As written, the guideline is quite clear for common nouns where two options are similar, but my take of WP:NATDAB and WP:COMMONNAME is that we should only use names that are more natural, and are at least in common use, giving a preference to the nat dabs only as the deciding factor if they are more natural than the disambiguated commonest name.
I ask because there is current discussion on whether to apply official names to a number of New Zealand places as natural disambiguation ( Talk:Cam_River_(Canterbury)#Requested_move_22_March_2022), but many of these official names are particularly rare in use, and result in substantially less natural titles. The implication of the RM is that the official name carries its own weight beyond its popular usage or naturalness. — HTGS ( talk) 05:37, 25 March 2022 (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.
There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#How common to be sufficiently common for natural disambiguation? to reword WP:NATURAL to make it more restrictive. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move for Schutzstaffel that has prompted debate over several aspects of this policy, including common names and precision. As a result, y'all may be interested in weighing in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has over 1,300 articles with titles beginning "U.S.", including, e.g., U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks, U.S. kill or capture strategy in Iraq, U.S. senator bibliography (congressional memoirs), and U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps (though more than half of all "U.S." titles are highway routes), and about 300 articles with titles beginning "US", including, e.g., US General Accounting Office Building, US Breastfeeding Report Card 2014, US military watches, US public opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement, US state laws and policies for ICT accessibility. We should have consistency, but what should be the standard, and should things like names of military units or route numbers be treated differently from generic examinations of the country's policies and activities? BD2412 T 22:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. CMOS has been showing a disturbing pattern in recent years of following trends in British English which make no sense because they appear to be attributable to the UK's gross underfunding and incompetent mismanagement of its schools. We have a lot of British expats here in California who fled to America to teach in schools that still value good writing.Nice to see that American arrogance and sense of superiority is alive and kicking! Well done for reminding us! Just to be clear, just because you write things in a certain way does not make it correct. Nor does it make everyone who does not do it that way wrong or incompetent. There is absolutely no need to insult another country because you can't cope with stylistic differences. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Attempting a priori standardization of U.S. or US is doomed to failure. We have redirects for a reason. We cannot dictate to our readers or our sources which is "correct" in every usage and even if we pick one for the sake of consistency neither the sources nor or our readers are consistent. It is neither useful nor necessary to have this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This discussion references and basically reiterates Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 60#RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events, that was just closed this January. (I'm taking the liberty of adding a "2" to this one; please don't give your RfC the exact same name as another RfC you're going to be referring to, it causes all sorts of confusion.) Unlike what the opener here writes, that was not actually closed with "reached "no consensus" on any matters", it seems to have been closed with dashes should be allowed but no consensus on format. If someone disagrees, we can ask User:Chess, the closer, to confirm, but that's what the bold letters say pretty clearly to me. Now, consensus can change but rarely over only three months. But, in any case, here we are.
Question 1: permitting dash-separated titles for sports events: I count 8 "agree/support" and "6 "disagree/oppose". Now arguments are more important than counting, but the main arguments for seem to be that dashes are a clearer or perfectly natural way of writing article titles, the arguments against are that they're unnatural, and not how sources refer to these topics, and the status quo suffices. Those seem to balance out, honestly; I don't see many or even any citations of sources either way, just assertions. Without evidence all these seem to be just a matter of personal taste. And we'd need a fairly clear consensus "against" to overturn the clear decision of the former RfC. So, again, or still, as per the last RFC, dash-separated titles for sports events are permitted.
Fewer participated in Question 2: ordering in a dash-separated title for sports events. Again, there aren't a lot of evidence based arguments, just "it's natural" for Option 1, vs "we should be flexible" for Option 3, with a balanced number of people supporting each. Cinderella157 made a long argument for option 2, but it doesn't look as if anyone else was convinced, and I'm not sure I understood it myself. Also two people interjected that it's not at all clear that 1 and 2 should be the only options. So consensus against mandating option 2, but a split decision between option 1 and being flexible, and almost as many saying these shouldn't be the only options, so a clear no consensus on format.
Finally, fewest of all participated in Question 3: amending WP:AT, two against, one for. I'm going to read this as against making any additions for dash-separated sports titles, not "let's make this decision but not tell anyone about it", which would be perverse. While Cinderella157 believes dashes would otherwise be forbidden under WP:QUALIFIER, others don't, because it's not clear that this is an example of disambiguation, and WP:TSC, for example, specifically allows dashes in titles in certain cases. No consensus to amend.
In other words: basically what the same titled RfC three months ago decided. Anyone who wants to reopen this question in only another three months ... maybe don't? -- GRuban ( talk) 01:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Background
The previous RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events was initiated to address matters of capitalisation in such article titles. Dash-separated article titles are extensively used for recurrent sporting tournaments, such as the Olympic games or annual events, where there are multiple events being played for. They are used for an article on a particular event being played for in a particular tournament's year - eg 2014 US Open – Men's Singles. That article is about the "men's singles" event being played for at the 2014 US Open. The article title has been described as being a "title – subtitle" construction. This construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. The dashed construction inherently has a disambiguation function. The "title – subtitle" also creates a sub-article relationship.
Well through the course of the earlier RfC, it was identified that dash-separated titles for sports events are explicitly inconsistent with prescriptive advice at WP:AT.
Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.
Do not create subsidiary articles: Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently.
Furthermore, at WP:TSC, we are advised to avoid the use of the dash in article titles. This is because of the need to create a redirect from the title that would use the hyphen in place of the dash. This is because keyboards do not provide accessibility to the dash characters.
The former RfC reached "no consensus" on any matters.
Outline of RfC
The RfC is presented as three questions. Please indicate your !vote for each question in the section following each section. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Rather than amend individual sections of WP:AT, the ultimate intention is to add a section to WP:AT that explicitly permits dash-separated titles for sports events. While the second and third questions might assume prior support, support is not presumed. To be clear, support for an outcome at one question cannot reasonably be construed or inferred to be support for an outcome at another question. Participants are therefore encouraged to respond to all of the questions (even though they might disagree with the first question) without fear that their views might be misconstrued. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
General comments
Hi, Dicklyon, Cinderella157, Fyunck(click), Wjemather, Lee Vilenski, Amakuru, Ravenswing, Sod25k, Sportsfan77777, Joseph2302, Jayron32, GhostOfDanGurney, Iffy, GraemeLeggett, Mjquinn_id, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Tony1, Montanabw, Kaffe42, BilledMammal, Herostratus, Thryduulf, SmokeyJoe, HawkAussie - you have contributed to the previous RfC and may wish to comment here. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Sod25m per new name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm gonna need some article examples, for me to fully understand what's being proposed. GoodDay ( talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Should two part dash-separated titles be explicitly permitted for sports event articles?
This question goes to specifically to acknowledging dash-separated titles for sports events as an exception to WP:QUALIFIER. The question does not assume an order of the two parts about the dash. This is addressed in the next question.
Please respond: Agree to explicitly support or Disagree to explicitly not support.
Discussion, comments, !votes
Comment: If two part dash-separated titles for sports event articles are such a good idea (as suggested in the previous RfC), there should be no issue with agreeing with the proposition. The dash construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. One might argue that this does not constitute disambiguation and does not create a conflict with WP:QUALIFIER. To my mind, that would be splitting hairs. If it is such a good idea, then it would be much better to simply resolve the matter by agreement with the question posed (or not). Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
From the discussion in the previous RfC (above) it became reasonably clear that the dashed construction is not a WP:COMMONNAME. It is not a construction found in the natural language of running text in sources, though it may be found be found in headings such as tables and in web pages. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You have not provide evidence of actual usage of the dashed construction in prose.and associated discussion). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This question is contingent on a consensus supporting question 1. The present usage of dash-separated title for sports events is in the form of "Title - subtitle" (eg 2014 US Open – Men's Singles). This creates an inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT. The options proposed are:
Option 1. That dash-separated titles for sports events shall be in the form of the example 2014 US Open – Men's Singles. This is an explicit exception to the inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT (ie it permits what can be considered a sub-article relationship).
Option 2. That dash-separated titles for sports events shall be in the form of the example Men's Singles – 2014 US Open. This is explicitly complies with WP:TITLEFORMAT. It does not imply a subarticle relationship.
Option 3. That either format in option 1 or option 2 be permitted. This is an explicity permits an exception to WP:TITLEFORMAT but does not prescribe the format to be used.
Discussion, comments, !votes
Comment: One could argue that the "title-subtitle" presently used in the two part dashed constructions do not create an "article-subarticle" relationship. To my mind, that would be splitting hairs. If the "title-subtitle" construction is such a good idea, it would be ultimately be much better to reach an agreement (option 1) that it is a good idea (or not - in which case, there are two alternatives presented). Cinderella157 ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This question and subsequent questions are contingent on outcomes at Q1 and Q2.
That
WP:AT be amended by way of a separate section to recognise that dash-separated title for sports events are an acknowledged exception to what is otherwise written at
WP:AT.
Discussion, comments, !votes
Comment: Assuming there is support at least for Q1, the proposition is to create a separate section to record that the dash separated construction is permitted for sports articles. Individual parts of WP:AT could be amended but this would require a consensus on the specific amendments to be made at several places. IMHO, it would be easier to construct a separate section permitting the dashed construction in sports articles notwithstanding anything else written at WP:AT. The benefit of such a section is that it would clearly record that the dashed construction is permitted. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
closed as allowing dashed titles in these articles.In the #Post close section, the closer made specific comments that go to that matter, and ultimately, the framing of this RfC. There has been no misrepresentation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The dash construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years.You may disagree that this inherently serves as a form of disambiguation but I can't see how. Not every case has to have a disambiguation page as a parent article (eg primary topics don't and cases with two alternatives use a hatnote from the primary topic. In cases using dashes, the templates serve to navigate in the same way as a disambiguation page. If the dashes are such a good construction using the "title-subtitle" format, then the natural outcome of this RfC will be to support this through the question rather than arguing about semantics and interpretations. You will note that the RfC is actually premised on an outcome to support such a construction. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Local consensus does not override but gives supplemental advice. I acknowledge that "men's" singles (and like) are notable. I acknowledge that the US Open (tennis) and other tournaments are notable. I acknowledge that the 2014 US Open (tennis) event is notable and even that the winners and particular players are notable. What is not yet clear is that the 2014 US Open – Men's Singles is sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. Furthermore, that it passes WP:NOTNEWS. I am open to being convinced that a substantial number of articles taking the dashed form are individually notable and therefore justify consistency as a rationale for acknowledging the construction. I am also open to any other cogent arguments that are for or aganst the construction being acknowledged. Please convince me. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This message provides notice that I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#2022 revision proposal on a proposed rewrite/update to the text of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Your comments are welcome. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Should
WP:NATURAL and
WP:NCDAB be rewritten to reflect that natural disambiguation should generally only be used to settle titles where there are near equal choices such as
Chinese whispers v
Telephone (game) (
RM) and
Handa Island v
Handa, Scotland (
RM) and not generally allow significantly less common titles trump the most common such as
Bus (computing) v
Computer bus (
RM) and
Fan (machine) v
Mechanical fan (
RM)? In the 2nd sentence at
WP:NATURAL I propose to change "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."
to "Natural disambiguation can generally be used where there are titles that are near equal choices (such as
French language v
French (language)), where its otherwise disputed such is best (like
Chinese whispers v
Telephone (game)) or where adding a qualifier is difficult or impossible like
Sarah Jane Brown where plain
Sarah Brown is ambiguous. In general qualified titles are preferred to natural disambiguation if the choice is not near equal even if the title would be understood, thus
New York (state) is preferred to
New York State and
Bray, Berkshire is preferred to
Bray on Thames, in particular do not, use obscure or
made-up names".
I don't mind if all or some of this is in a footnote if this is too long and I welcome any suggestions for better examples. @
Born2cycle,
Amakuru, and
RGloucester:
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not, however, use obscure or made-up namesto
Do not, however, use significantly less common or made-up names? Ruбlov ( talk) 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
What sources refer to 'New York State' as 'New York (state)'?That is the same as asking "What sources refer to the planet Mercury as 'Mercury (planet)'? It is called plain old 'New York' in the context of states, [2] and the parenthetical disambiguation mirrors that fact. StonyBrook ( talk) 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not, however, use made-up names or uncommon names, even when they are the official name or understandable. Natural disambiguation such as New York State will continue to be an option and so the dispute there will not be resolved, but it should address the general issue which goes beyond more ambiguous options such as that.
Natural disambiguation can generally be used … where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game)). It’s also not clear that this change reflects a community consensus based on RMs in general, especially when many of the examples given were close calls or lacked a consensus entirely. And maybe this is a different problem, but if we’re being this verbose, I would like the guidance to include an explanation for why New York State is looked down on, while French language isn’t. — HTGS ( talk) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Primergrey: I was partially reverting an edit from two days earlier that appeared to provide additional weight to the "consistency" argument without a consensus to do so. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
18:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about an update to chemistry naming conventions occuring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Updating_naming_conventions_for_groups. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding naming conventions for events and incidents occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guidance at WP:NCEVENTS out of step with application of it. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:CRITERIA and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Wikipedia:CRITERIA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
21:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Improper acceptance of a new proposal as policy. —usernamekiran
(talk)
06:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This example came from Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58#SMALLDETAILS and plurals, it was removed by User:162 etc. on the grounds of the article title being Cricket (insect). As far as I can see SMALLDETAILS doesn't just deal with titles as such it also deals with WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs so the example of a title that is relatively unambiguous as a plural even if the singular is far more ambiguous seems like a good example. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The Médecins Sans Frontières → Doctors Without Borders discussion at Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières#Requested move 23 August 2022 may be of interest. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing conflict, occasionally moving to edit-warring by single-purpose editors (see Sydney, where the article had to be protected for a while), concerning the insertion of Indigenous place names in the first sentence of the lede for articles on Australian places. There are conflicting interpretations of the wording in WP:PLACE. The "General Guidelines" section there begins:
The wording under question in Australian contexts is this:
…or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place…
This wording is being used as justification to insert additional names into the first sentence of an article using the apparently permissible reason that before European settlement in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, Indigenous Australians lived in Australia and had their own languages and names for places. Eg.
Jelly Bean ( Quenya: Gummibar) is a sweet little town in New South Wales.
Such Indigenous names are rarely in current common use or have significant literature, though there are well known exceptions such as Uluru or the many instances where the European colonisers simply appropriated the existing name for their own use, generally Anglicising it to some extent, such as in Canberra. The sort of sources being used to justify additional Indigenous names are generally specialist or tertiary sources, such as a sentence on the town council website eg. "Jelly Bean (or Gummibar as the Aboriginals used to call it) was first settled in 1806 by Captain Harry Beau who farmed sugar cane and koala bears."
There is no dispute over a "Name" or "Etymology" or "Early history" section in the content giving well-sourced details of the previous occupants and their languages and culture and what they called the region, but the insertion in the lead sentence of an archaic name that is not in wide current use, does not appear on maps or in GPS devices, and is found only in a few specialist or tertiary sources, is causing some hearted discussion. Some editors feel that they can redress some of the evils of colonisation by recognising the first Australians in adding an Indigenous name to as many Australian articles as they can find council webpage sources for. It would be helpful in minimising ongoing disruption and conflict if the wording noted above could be clarified to either support or reject such usage as a blanket rule.
I don't think that we are at the RfC stage yet, though if POV-pushing continues we will be. This question has been raised previously at the project talk page but has not gained any traction, and I would like comments from editors specialising in this area of naming conventions. Looking through the extensive talk page discussion archives there shows little or no discussion on using Indigenous names; this section appears to be more about previous foreign language names used in English literature at various times eg. Istanbul was previously known as Constantinople and Byzantium and these names are found in English maps and books and other texts of the relevant period. Indigenous Australian placenames are rarely found as standalone names in English-language texts. -- Pete ( talk) 08:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Jonathan Kestenbaum, Baron Kestenbaum
Actually, it looks as though we are all over the place with these. /info/en/?search=Category:Labour_Party_(UK)_life_peers
2603:7000:2143:8500:346E:7EDB:D6A:77B5 ( talk) 00:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
To me it seems very clear that the {{ shortcut}} box mentioning WP:SINGULAR ought to merged with the one mentioning WP:ARTSINGLE. Those are clearly synonymous, so I moved the mention of WP:SINGULAR to where WP:ARTSINGLE is, i.e. to the specific subject that discusses whether article titles should be singular or plural. However, there is still an inconsistency regarding the other redirects WP:NOUN, WP:DEFINITE and WP:LOWERCASE, which still refer to the parent section rather that the specific subsections associated with each of their names. I suggest these should all redirect to the specific subsections associated with their names. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It's bugged me for a while that we don't have a practical guide to determining the commonname for a topic, so I finally wrote up a draft of such a guide here: User:Colin M/Determining commonname. After I do another pass of edits, I was thinking of linking it from this page's "See also". Any feedback/edits are welcome.
The closest thing we already have along these lines is Wikipedia:Search engine test, but that page is kind of a messy mishmash of advice on using search engines to establish notability (which was the historical focus of the page many years ago, but has since become a deprecated practice), using search engines to find sources for building out an article, and generic search engine advice. It barely talks about naming, and mostly deals with general-purpose web searches, which are basically useless for commonname purposes. Colin M ( talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a bit frustrated with WP:NCEVENTS implementation: it's routinely challenged in move requests, usually by more novice editors (but not always) on the grounds that a year is not needed to disambiguate an incident ( WP:NOYEAR explicitly states that a year is only needed for disambiguation purposes, whereas the rest of the guideline doesn't). A prime illustration of this is this discussion. However, I thought the primary idea of the naming convention was to make titles WP:CONSISTENT with each other. Is this a common tension among other naming conventions? What is the best way to go about this? I've considered altering WP:NOYEAR through RfC regarding the "disambiguate" wording, but I think this needs some discussion beforehand. Pilaz ( talk) 11:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognizean article title better if it comes with the year, with few exceptions. The problem is that one can frame the scope of "the subject area" in any way they want: for 2007 Glasgow Airport attack, for example, the attack is probably not recognizable for someone familiar with the topic of terrorism (myself included), but probably recognizable for someone familiar with the topic of Scottish terrorism. I suppose the "disambiguate only" type of !vote is a reference to WP:PRECISION, too. Pilaz ( talk) 16:19, 8 October 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 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
The first thing I will do is try to determine what the point of this RfC was. It appeared to have been started after a discussion on a tennis tournament's talk page resulted in a consensus to sentence case subparts of a tennis tournament, which has resulted in an interested party coming here to harmonize the practices of capitalization after dashes with respect to a broader range of sporting events, as the closure of that move resulted in inconsistencies. This appears to have rapidly spiralled into a debate on whether or not dashes should be used at all in article titles on sport events. This has confused the RfC immensely as it has now become a debate on two separate issues instead of one. First, should dashes be used in article titles, and second, if we are allowing dashes, what is the correct capitalization of the text after them? I will try to evaluate both of these issues separately.
In terms of the "allowing dashes" issue, I will categorize participants into "pro-dash" and "anti-dash" as "Option E" is ambiguous in this RfC. Note that "pro-dash" does not mean forcing dashes on sports event articles, but refers to being in favour of allowing dashes in some way.
The main arguments of the anti-dashers are that dashes read unnaturally and inconsistent with other article titles in different subjects. Editors believe that non-dash options are generally superior to dashes in every case where a dash may be used in a sporting event title. Some editors have raised a number of arguments based on
WP:Article titles as well as claiming
WP:CONLEVEL doesn't allow for projects to create rules against sitewide guidelines. This seems questionable, since the point of this RfC is to discuss possible changes to the
WP:Article titles policy. If the usage of dashes in article titles went against
WP:Article titles, the appropriate place to discuss exemptions would be
WT:Article titles, which is where we are now.
The main arguments of the "pro-dashers" are numerous. The first main argument is the belief that we should follow the titling convention of reliable sources. This is a very compelling argument given Wikipedia's emphasis on sourcing, but others have brought up that the locus of this discussion is relating to subevents of larger sporting events and often these subevents do not necessarily have reliable sources that agree on titles. Dicklyon says deep in this discussion (in relation to all of the issues here) that "since sources don't use titles resembling these at all, and refer to them in a wide variety of ways", "follow the sources" is a misguided ideal. That being said, there seemed to be at least some agreement on this arcane point and "follow the sources" is something that has consensus in cases where sources agree on something.
The second argument from the "pro-dashers" is that there are a bunch of articles with very lengthy titles where removing the dash would cause them to become incomprehensible. The anti-dashers have proposed alternate titles for the specific examples given by
Sod25k, but have not addressed how the proposed rule of removing dashing would be generally implemented in those cases. This, in my opinion, is an important point that should be addressed before any broader rule change occurs.
The third argument is that this would be hell to deal with in templates. "Natural wording" will result in more inconsistency given that "main event" dashed with the "sub event" is a significant format.
Cinderella157 has created a section specifically for the template issues which can be summed up as "While I am not familiar with the language or syntax of templates, this is potentially an opportunity to improve the flexibility of the templates." I don't really see the appeal of this refutation as it didn't address how this potentially massive issue will be resolved and just proposed other people doing more work to fix the template issues.
The fourth argument is one that inconsistency is fine and that they'd like to leave it up to WikiProjects, and that creating a firm rule is busywork for the sake of busywork. This is embodied in
Thryduulf saying "I still fail to see any benefit from imposing a single rule for all occasions". This is an interesting argument, although not as compelling as the template/lengthy titles argument.
Based on the arguments made here, I will close by saying that dashes should be allowed for the future, based mainly on the fact there may be major practical issues to implementing a ban on dashes in sports event article titles that weren't addressed here by the anti-dashers. This was one of the most commonly cited beliefs among the pro-dashers and was not effectively refuted.
The capitalization debate is more painful to resolve as unlike the dashing debate its scope is unclear. It appears to me that option C would only be applicable to tennis, option B has an unclear breadth, and option A may be applicable to all sporting events. However, during the actual RfC itself, assumptions were made from those opposed to capitalization requirements that this would be widely applicable to all sporting events. The "background" section provides Luge as an example and the original question is vague as to whether this is a "tennis-only" RfC or not.
To try to resolve this, I will first say that there is no consensus for all sporting events. The RfC is sufficiently unclear that I don't see any consensus to mandate capitalization standards on all sporting events, and many !votes in favour of mandating a capitalization style appear to assume this will be a tennis specific rule. Likewise, many !votes oppose standardized requirements across all sporting events as a rule. If there is another RfC on this, it should be specifically focused only on capitalization and clearly delineate its applicability.
Secondly, I will say there is a consensus to let the editors in the tennis topic area decide the capitalization issue themselves, although it's unclear what that decision will be. The RfC's structure presupposes that it's OK to make guidelines for specific topic areas and appears to be focused on whether or not to harmonize tennis articles with an alleged broader consensus. Many !votes on the capitalization issue deal with a purely tennis perspective. Many "Option E" !voters also based their !votes on allowing for individual WikiProjects to make decisions on these issues, or generally believe these issues should be decided on a case by case basis. Only a few !voters seem to believe that the capitalization (or anti-dashing) rules proposed should be broadly applicable to all sporting events.
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)What is the most appropriate title style or pattern for articles with dash-separated two-part sports event titles such as 2014 US Open – Men's Singles? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Many two-part article titles, with parts separated by a spaced en dash, have title-case or sentence-case capitalization after the dash. In a sentence context, MOS:SENTENCECAPS suggests to not cap after a dash, but there's no guidance in a title context, where the usage is more like illustrated in MOS:LISTDASH, where again there's no capping after the dash. This RFC is to look at these and decide what to do about the style variations, particularly in the context of sporting events for now, since that's what most of them are (find more context re other areas, and discussion of capping in tennis titles, in a talk section further up this page).
Some titles are not capped after dash, consistent with MOS:CAPS:
But many have title-case or sentence-case subtitles after dash. Most sports mostly follow this sentence-case subtitle pattern:
Tennis articles usually have title case, with capped Singles and Doubles, in tennis-only events:
but not in Olympic and similar International games contexts:
The reasons for the capitalization variations don't seem to have much to do with WP's style guidance, and even the dashed two-part construct seems an unusual pattern per all the advice at WP:AT. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Possible resolutions to choose from, support, oppose, or comment on:
Dicklyon ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Background to forming this RfC An RM was opened at The Championships, Wimbledon to address inconsistent titles in some of the earliest events, with an initial proposal: 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles → 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (typical). The close ultimately determined: 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles → 1903 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles (typical). The discussion did identify MOS:SENTENCECAPS as an issue but the closer made no specific comment WRT to this. A discussion was commenced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis concerning various title formatting issues, including the use of a dash delimiter and capitalisation, both generally and more specifically after a dash. A discussion was also held here, with a question as to what, if any guidance existed WRT capping in a dashed title. Looking at the discussions, the matter of dashed titles appears to be most prevalent in sports article. I am not certain, but within sports, my understanding would be that tennis is the most prevalent for that style (by article count)? More certainly, it is the more prevelent WRT the issue of capping after the dash. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The responses above show a clear super-majority in favor of some kind of case fixing (options A, B, and D), and a small minority in favor of doing nothing (C or E), so we should focus next on what's the best path forward. A number of editors favor the "natural" dashless form (D), while a similar number find that to be the worst approach (due mostly to the fact that it would be very hard to get right in general, for such a large and diverse set of pages, and wouldn't be compatible with a bunch of existing nav templates). So it seems to me that we need to choose between A and B. About half of respondents supported A, and nearly as many B (with different orders of preference). Personally, I prefer A, though I know B will be a lot less work.
The question really goes back to where I started in a section above: what is the intended function of the dashed two-part titles, and how should they be styled? It seems the main interpretation (at least in sporting events) is as a "subtitle", and some see that as justification for starting over "sentence case" after the dash; other point out that titles should be rendered as they would be in running text, and it would be unusual to see such capitalization (or dash) in running text.
Note that in lawn bowls the convention used on most is to treat the subevent as parenthetical disambiguation, as in Bowls England National Championships (Men's Fours), but still over-capitalized. It might be more logical as Men's four (Bowls England National Championships). Others, in the context of broader games, use the dash form, with various case variations, e.g. Lawn bowls at the 2010 Commonwealth Games – Women's triples. Several respondents mentioned parenthetical disambiguation as a possible improvement, so I'd like to see if there's more support for that, too.
So, I solicit here further comments that would help us converge on a consensus of the best way to move forward, particularly A vs B, but still open to alternatives. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't want takeaway (I'd rather eat in). Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there will be an issue with templates. I have a look at a couple of examples. Templates would be of two general types. For a particular event (year) they create links to the titles played for. For a particular title they create links to other titles played during a particular event. The latter are effectively sub-pages of an event page. In either case, the templates assume a particular article title format in order to generate the links. The templates will fail if there is no target article having the "assumed" article title format. However, this issue is easily remedied by ensuring there are redirects from the "assumed" article title format to the "actual" article title. I believe this already occurred for Wimbledon tennis championships that used "ladies" and "gentlemen" instead of "men's" and "women's" for titles. It is a simple solution to what might otherwise be perceived as a near insurmountable problem. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I have only looked at a couple of tennis templates but would make these observations. These are not "smart" templates that rely on recognising a dashed construction to generate an infobox - they simply assume such a construction and capitalisation. Consequently, any change whatsoever to "any" part of a "standard" title format will require a revision of such templates at the template level. They lack flexibility. While I am not familiar with the language or syntax of templates, this is potentially an opportunity to improve the flexibility of the templates. The issue is not a matter of parsing that is reliant on a dashed construction. Secondly, these templates are not the ducks nuts. Specifically, they create red-links for titles played for that don't appear to exist - such as invitation or masters titles. The templates are not being applied to "acknowledge" para titles being played for. However, this is not a deficiency in the templates per se but in how they are being applied. Any change can be seen as an opportunity for improvement and an opportunity to make such templates more resilient. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm creating a new subsection here so that stuff not relating to templates can move forward, and the conversation regarding templates can continue in that section. Herostratus ( talk) 07:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
So let's see, counting heads as of this date, we have, as a first choice:
Lot of editors gave a second choice, and these are:
And, five editors opposing D.
C got no traction, and there were three E votes that weren't "do nothing" were for one-vote proposals: 1 for parents, 1 for following sources, 1 unclear. Let's promote those editors' second choices (or drop them if there wasn't one)
Since D has 7 first choices (and no second), but five explicit opposes... I can't see D as going forward since it has essentially a "net vote" of 2. Five editors really don't want D, and I think it would be pretty divisive to go forward with that. (The D voters will object to that, but what can you do? Ignore the editors who specifically called out D to say they hate it?) So, also discarding D and promoting those editors second choices, we get:
First choice:
Second choice:
I can see a couple of ways to cut this cake, assuming you're even still on board with me here:
1) Combine A + B into "Do Something", giving "Do Something" 11+4 vs "Do Nothing" 6+1. Counting just first choices gives 65% to "Do Something", which with 17 people involved, I suppose that could count as a win, barely. Then, "A" having 7+2 vs "B" having 4+2, well, "A" is 7-4 among first choices (which are what mainly count), which is 64%... which 64% of 11 people doesn't mean much I'd say. Others may think it does. In this way you could either anoint "A" the winner, or run another RfC, "A" vs "B".
2) Drop B since it's the weakest of the three. Promoting "B" voters second choices (if any) adds one to "A" and one to "Do Nothing", giving First choice:
Second choices are no longer in play. 8-7 is a tie.
None of this considers strength of arguments, but what can I say? Nobody has a killer argument that I see. C'mon, it's a matter of opinion basically. If your argument is that good, it'll probably convince other people and you'll win the headcount anyway. If you're not changing people's minds, either your argument is maybe not as strong at you think, or else it really is a matter of opinion and arguments don't much matter.
So, these multi-choice RfC usually don't end with a clear "winner" and aren't so much intended to as to just generally be discussions, and also to narrow the field. I suppose the next step would be to have a new, binary, RfC, which will I guess could take the form of "A" vs "Do Nothing" (I reccomend this as simpler). (The annoying is that if "A" has 13 votes and "Do Nothing" has 10 votes, "Do Nothing" wins, since no consensus == no change. Oh well.)
or you could have something like:
If "A" is a clear win, then you see if "A1" is clear win over "A2" or vice versa; if so, Bob's your uncle, if not you're screwed, and I have no idea what you'd do. Herostratus ( talk) 07:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
First off, as you note, consensus is not built on headcount (or single transferrable vote) but on strength of argument; you also acknowledge that you are completely disregarding this in your unhelpful attempt to steer this discussion – plus we have Dicklyon's steering above. Second, many of the !votes above (including your own) directly contradict policy and existing guidelines, so very little weight can be given to them. wjemather please leave a message... 10:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
My working for the above comment. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1st preference:
2nd preference:
Oppose:
E: 0
Notes:
|
Defining the issues As with many RfCs, the issues become clearer as the discussion unfolds. As I see matters, there are now two clear issues:
Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
is a sequence of one or more characters for specifying the boundary between separate, independent regions in plain text, mathematical expressions or other data streams.In this case, I am referring to a dash, which is separating a title from a subtitle or the "main" part of the title from its disambiguation. Your comment per:
If you start saying everything is a disambiguation delimiter, instead of "2021 Australian Open" we'll have to start using Australian Open (2021) and George Washington (farewell address).It makes no sense to me since it appears to not understand what a delimiter is. To me, it seems to be a red-herring argument. If you were to read my !vote (in full), I have already directly quoted the particular text that is an explicate statement not to use a dash as a disambiguation delimiter. It is at WP:QUALIFIER (in WP:AT):
Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.I have also identified at my !vote, other "levels" at which the dash construction is contrary to P&G, particularly at WP:AT. A significant number of editors have specifically identified that the dash is separating terms in a title with the function of providing disambiguation. The subtitle perception of the construction is also dealt with by the afore quote. A colon (and only a colon) is permitted in the
subtitles of some creative works. We are not dealing with a creative work here and a dash is not a colon! Per WP:COMMONNAME at WP:AT:
In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article. A dashed construction is not a ""natural expression" Consequently, we don't rely on "titles" and headings in sources using such a construction to determine a WP article title. The weight of P&G (particularly WP:AT - a policy) would determine that the dashed construction, the subject of this discussion, is not to be used on a number of levels. To argue otherwise would appear to me to be pettifogging. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
to separate a disambiguating term in an article title? Cinderella157 ( talk) 14:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article ... that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). If you are trying to say that the dashed construction is commonly used in prose (natural language) in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources, then show the evidence. Most often, you are seeing things like: "Highlights of Wimbledon Championships men's singles final". As to what WP:AT says on using a dash as a disamiguation separating character, I think it is self-evident. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
It is also very often seen as 2019 Wimbledon Men's Singles event.I have looked quite hard to find evidence of the dashed construction in prose. I'm not finding anything; though, I am seeing it in headings and tables etc. Even then, I'm not seeing it consistently capitalised either in full or in part.
Herostratus, given that you have stated: Nobody has a killer argument that I see.
Have you seen my revised !vote and the reasons I have given overall?
Cinderella157 (
talk)
09:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not a headcount, but it is basically a matter of opinion, and if you don't want to count heads, then it has to be "no change" since opinions can't really have strength of argument.[per yourself herein] Except it isn't? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Is the spaced dashed creating a subtitle/disambiguation? To my observation of the discussion herein, it is. It has specifically been referred to as such. With the exception of perhaps Fyunck, it has been at least tacitly acknowledged as such. In templates, it is being used as such. However, I am now specifically asking this question. This relates to matters of policy at WP:AT. For details, see my !vote (second down - please read in full) and the discussion immediately above ( #Defining the issues). If it is not creating a subtitle/disambiguation, then what is the function of the dash? Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments
If it is not creating a subtitle/disambiguation, then what is the function of the dash?That is the substantive question. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
now that there is precedent to change the capitalization, I will support your RFC. And you state:
I would not single out sports articles by any stretch. The latter widens the scope and determines a central venue. You certainly played a role (ie were instrumental) in bringing the RfC here. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Background
Where are we now
It's not a headcount, but it is basically a matter of opinion, and if you don't want to count heads, then it has to be "no change" since opinions can't really have strength of argument.While most of the !votes are substantially just opinion, there are some that are based in P&G.
word salad. Regardless of whichever titling option is applied, such titles should be improved.
Where to from here
1. As previously identified, the status quo (option C) is untenable as an outcome from this RfC. However, there is no clear alternative outcome from this particular RfC. The closer will consequently need to guide the direction forward.
2. Do we proceed forward with a new RfC trying to reach a central decision on the issue of capitalisation in a dashed construction - this being the initial premise of this RfC.
3. Do we cease trying to resolve this centrally (ie revert to a more project specific approach).
4. Given the number of articles that appear to use the dashed construction and that such a construction appears quite contrary to P&G, can we simply ignore that?
Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Dicklyon, Cinderella157, Fyunck(click), Wjemather, Lee Vilenski, Amakuru, Ravenswing, Sod25k, Sportsfan77777, Joseph2302, Jayron32, GhostOfDanGurney, Iffy, GraemeLeggett, Mjquinn_id, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Tony1, Montanabw, Kaffe42, BilledMammal, Herostratus, Thryduulf, SmokeyJoe, HawkAussie - you have contributed to this RfC by offering a !vote in the initial section. You may be interested in contributing to further discussion immediately below. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see this section (above) for an assessment/summary. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Avoiding work is not a compelling reason.I don't see anybody actually saying P&G "allow flexibility in these matters". One can WP:IAR but not on the basis of "I don't like it" or "I like this better". There needs to be good objective reasons. Policy tends to be quite firm and WP:AT is a policy. You might see WP:PG and WP:IARMEANS. If the dashed construction is such a good idea, one should be able to convince others to change the policy to permit it. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm too old & too confused, as to what direction this RFC has taken. All I ask is that we use english in the titles. GoodDay ( talk) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Just noting to anyone reading this that Cinderella157 moved one of my comments to make it look like I was disagreeing with GoodDay, when I was in fact criticizing Cinderella157's distorted summary above. I moved my comment back to the correct place, and put a strikethrough where Cinderella157 moved my comment. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 07:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Pls put comments in comments section. I believe that to be reasonably consistent with policy on the matter though I acknowledge that I might have done that better. If GoodDay misunderstood the "result", I took steps at their TP to remedy this. You reverted my move with the comment
please don't edit others' comments, Cinderella157. Yes, I have removed your edits to my comment/assessment (above) with the edit summary
Please don't edit others' comments, User:Sportsfan77777. I actually moved your edit to the correct place with the dot point in place so that it was a first level comment.This has all started with you editing another's comments. I welcome your comments but I would expect you treat others with the same courtesy that you would expect. To not do so is hypocrisy. Please fix this. Your comments are welcome (but in the right place), even if I disagree with them. Then, with the consent of GoodDay and Fyunck(click) (who have contributed to this thread), I would be happy to strike this whole section. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
These patterns, with years prefixed to them, about 5000 articles with the opercapped "Singles" and "Doubles". I think they're pretty much all tennis, but haven't verified that carefully. The ones with "Singles" or "Doubles" immediately after the dash, without "Men's" or "Women's" or whatever, can be left as-is. I'll make a filtered list of article titles and ask for a bot to move them after we establish consensus. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
List of articles, with year prefixes removed
|
---|
* ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament – Wheelchair Doubles * ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament – Wheelchair Singles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * ASB Classic – Men's Doubles * ASB Classic – Men's Singles * ASB Classic – Women's Doubles * ASB Classic – Women's Singles * ATP Challenger China International – Nanchang – Doubles * ATP Challenger China International – Nanchang – Singles * ATP China International Tennis Challenge – Anning – Doubles * ATP China International Tennis Challenge – Anning – Singles * Aberto da República – Men's Doubles * Aberto da República – Men's Singles * Aberto da República – Women's Doubles * Aberto da República – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Men's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Men's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Pegaso – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Men's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Men's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telcel – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Men's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Men's Singles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano Telefonica Movistar – Women's Singles * Abierto Mexicano de Tenis Telefonica Movistar – Women's Doubles * Abierto Mexicano de Tenis Telefonica Movistar – Women's Singles * Adelaide International 1 – Men's Doubles * Adelaide International 1 – Men's Singles * Adelaide International 1 – Women's Doubles * Adelaide International 1 – Women's Singles * Adelaide International – Men's Doubles * Adelaide International – Men's Singles * Adelaide International – Women's Doubles * Adelaide International – Women's Singles * Adidas International – Men's Doubles * Adidas International – Men's Singles * Adidas International – Women's Doubles * Adidas International – Women's Singles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Men's Doubles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Men's Singles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Women's Doubles * Advantage Cars Prague Open – Women's Singles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Men's Doubles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Men's Singles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Women's Doubles * Aegon GB Pro-Series Bath – Women's Singles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Men's Doubles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Men's Singles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Women's Doubles * Aegon Ilkley Trophy – Women's Singles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Men's Doubles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Men's Singles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Women's Doubles * Aegon International Eastbourne – Women's Singles * Aegon International – Men's Doubles * Aegon International – Men's Singles * Aegon International – Women's Doubles * Aegon International – Women's Singles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Men's Doubles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Men's Singles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Women's Doubles * Aegon Pro-Series Loughborough – Women's Singles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Men's Doubles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Men's Singles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Women's Doubles * Aegon Surbiton Trophy – Women's Singles * Aegon Trophy – Men's Doubles * Aegon Trophy – Men's Singles * Aegon Trophy – Women's Doubles * Aegon Trophy – Women's Singles * American Express – TED Open – Doubles * American Express – TED Open – Singles * Anning Open – Men's Doubles * Anning Open – Men's Singles * Anning Open – Women's Doubles * Anning Open – Women's Singles * Antonio Savoldi–Marco Cò – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Doubles * Antonio Savoldi–Marco Cò – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Singles * Apia International Sydney – Men's Doubles * Apia International Sydney – Men's Singles * Apia International Sydney – Women's Doubles * Apia International Sydney – Women's Singles * Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Doubles * Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Singles * Astana Open – Men's Doubles * Astana Open – Men's Singles * Astana Open – Women's Doubles * Astana Open – Women's Singles * Australasian Championships – Men's Doubles * Australasian Championships – Men's Singles * Australasian Championships – Mixed Doubles * Australasian Championships – Women's Doubles * Australasian Championships – Women's Singles * Australian Championships – Men's Doubles * Australian Championships – Men's Singles * Australian Championships – Mixed Doubles * Australian Championships – Women's Doubles * Australian Championships – Women's Singles * Australian Open (December) – Men's Doubles * Australian Open (December) – Men's Singles * Australian Open (December) – Women's Doubles * Australian Open (December) – Women's Singles * Australian Open (January) – Men's Doubles * Australian Open (January) – Men's Singles * Australian Open (January) – Women's Doubles * Australian Open (January) – Women's Singles * Australian Open – Boys' Doubles * Australian Open – Boys' Singles * Australian Open – Girls' Doubles * Australian Open – Girls' Singles * Australian Open – Men's Doubles * Australian Open – Men's Legends' Doubles * Australian Open – Men's Singles * Australian Open – Mixed Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * Australian Open – Wheelchair Women's Singles * Australian Open – Women's Doubles * Australian Open – Women's Legends Doubles * Australian Open – Women's Legends' Doubles * Australian Open – Women's Singles * BNP Paribas Open – Men's Doubles * BNP Paribas Open – Men's Singles * BNP Paribas Open – Women's Doubles * BNP Paribas Open – Women's Singles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles * Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles * Beijing International Challenger – Men's Doubles * Beijing International Challenger – Men's Singles * Beijing International Challenger – Women's Doubles * Beijing International Challenger – Women's Singles * Belgrade Challenger – Men's Doubles * Belgrade Challenger – Men's Singles * Belgrade Challenger – Women's Doubles * Belgrade Challenger – Women's Singles * Bendigo International – Men's Doubles * Bendigo International – Men's Singles * Bendigo International – Women's Singles * Benson & Hedges Centennial Open – Men's Singles * Brasil Open – Men's Doubles * Brasil Open – Men's Singles * Brisbane International – Men's Doubles * Brisbane International – Men's Singles * Brisbane International – Women's Doubles * Brisbane International – Women's Singles * British Hard Court Championships – Men's Singles * Burnie International – Men's Doubles * Burnie International – Men's Singles * Burnie International – Women's Doubles * Burnie International – Women's Singles * Camparini Gioielli Cup – Trofeo Pompea – Doubles * Camparini Gioielli Cup – Trofeo Pompea – Singles * Canadian Open – Men's Doubles * Canadian Open – Men's Singles * Canadian Open – Women's Doubles * Canadian Open – Women's Singles * Canberra Tennis International – Men's Doubles * Canberra Tennis International – Men's Singles * Canberra Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Canberra Tennis International – Women's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Men's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Men's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Women's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Gatineau – Women's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Men's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Men's Singles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Women's Doubles * Challenger Banque Nationale de Granby – Women's Singles * China Open – Men's Doubles * China Open – Men's Singles * China Open – Mixed Doubles * China Open – Women's Doubles * China Open – Women's Singles * Cincinnati Open – Men's Singles * Citi Open – Men's Doubles * Citi Open – Men's Singles * Citi Open – Women's Doubles * Citi Open – Women's Singles * Città di Vercelli – Trofeo Multimed – Doubles * Città di Vercelli – Trofeo Multimed – Singles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Men's Doubles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Men's Singles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Women's Doubles * City of Playford Tennis International II – Women's Singles * City of Playford Tennis International – Men's Doubles * City of Playford Tennis International – Men's Singles * Claro Open Medellín – Men's Doubles * Claro Open Medellín – Men's Singles * Columbus Challenger – Men's Doubles * Columbus Challenger – Men's Singles * Columbus Challenger – Women's Doubles * Columbus Challenger – Women's Singles * Compaq Grand Slam Cup – Men's Singles * Compaq Grand Slam Cup – Women's Singles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – San Sebastián – Doubles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – San Sebastián – Singles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – Vigo – Doubles * Concurso Internacional de Tenis – Vigo – Singles * Darwin Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Darwin Tennis International – Women's Singles * Delhi Open – Men's Doubles * Delhi Open – Men's Singles * Delhi Open – Women's Doubles * Delhi Open – Women's Singles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Dunlop World Challenge – Men's Doubles * Dunlop World Challenge – Men's Singles * Dunlop World Challenge – Women's Doubles * Dunlop World Challenge – Women's Singles * ECM Prague Open – Men's Doubles * ECM Prague Open – Men's Singles * ECM Prague Open – Women's Doubles * ECM Prague Open – Women's Singles * Eastbourne International – Men's Doubles * Eastbourne International – Men's Singles * Eastbourne International – Women's Doubles * Eastbourne International – Women's Singles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Men's Doubles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Men's Singles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Women's Doubles * Emilia-Romagna Open – Women's Singles * Ericsson Open – Men's Doubles * Ericsson Open – Men's Singles * Ericsson Open – Women's Doubles * Ericsson Open – Women's Singles * Estoril Open – Men's Doubles * Estoril Open – Men's Singles * Estoril Open – Women's Doubles * Estoril Open – Women's Singles * Fergana Challenger – Men's Doubles * Fergana Challenger – Men's Singles * Fergana Challenger – Women's Doubles * Fergana Challenger – Women's Singles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Fifth Third Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * French Championships – Men's Doubles * French Championships – Men's Singles * French Championships – Seniors Over 40 Singles * French Championships – Women's Doubles * French Championships – Women's Singles * French Covered Court Championships – Men's Singles * French Open – Boys' Doubles * French Open – Boys' Singles * French Open – Girls' Doubles * French Open – Girls' Singles * French Open – Legends Over 45 Doubles * French Open – Legends Under 45 Doubles * French Open – Men's Doubles * French Open – Men's Singles * French Open – Mixed Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles * French Open – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles * French Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * French Open – Wheelchair Women's Singles * French Open – Women's Doubles * French Open – Women's Legends Doubles * French Open – Women's Singles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Men's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Men's Singles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Women's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Ilkley Trophy – Women's Singles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Men's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Men's Singles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Women's Doubles * Fuzion 100 Surbiton Trophy – Women's Singles * Hamburg European Open – Men's Doubles * Hamburg European Open – Men's Singles * Hamburg European Open – Women's Doubles * Hamburg European Open – Women's Singles * Heineken Trophy – Men's Doubles * Heineken Trophy – Men's Singles * Heineken Trophy – Women's Doubles * Heineken Trophy – Women's Singles * Holden NSW Open – Men's Doubles * Holden NSW Open – Men's Singles * Hua Hin Championships – Men's Doubles * Hua Hin Championships – Men's Singles * Hua Hin Championships – Women's Doubles * Hua Hin Championships – Women's Singles * Hungarian International Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * I.ČLTK Prague Open – Men's Doubles * I.ČLTK Prague Open – Men's Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Baotou – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Baotou – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Hong Kong – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Sanya – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Sanya – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen Longhua – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen Longhua – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Shenzhen – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Suzhou – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Suzhou – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wenshan – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wenshan – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wuhan – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Wuhan – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xi'an – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xi'an – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xuzhou – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Xuzhou – Singles * ITF Women's Circuit – Yakima – Doubles * ITF Women's Circuit – Yakima – Singles * ITF Women's World Tennis Tour – Bellinzona – Doubles * ITF Women's World Tennis Tour – Bellinzona – Singles * Idea Prokom Open – Men's Doubles * Idea Prokom Open – Men's Singles * Idea Prokom Open – Women's Doubles * Idea Prokom Open – Women's Singles * Ilkley Trophy – Men's Doubles * Ilkley Trophy – Men's Singles * Ilkley Trophy – Women's Doubles * Ilkley Trophy – Women's Singles * Indian Wells Masters – Men's Doubles * Indian Wells Masters – Men's Singles * Indian Wells Masters – Women's Doubles * Indian Wells Masters – Women's Singles * Internationaux du Doubs – Open de Franche-Comté – Doubles * Internationaux du Doubs – Open de Franche-Comté – Singles * Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Men's Doubles * Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Men's Singles * Internazionali di Tennis di Manerbio – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Doubles * Internazionali di Tennis di Manerbio – Trofeo Dimmidisì – Singles * Italian Open – Men's Doubles * Italian Open – Men's Singles * Italian Open – Women's Doubles * Italian Open – Women's Singles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Jin'an Open – Women's Doubles * Jin'an Open – Women's Singles * Jinan International Open – Men's Doubles * Jinan International Open – Men's Singles * Jinan International Open – Women's Doubles * Jinan International Open – Women's Singles * Kazan Summer Cup – Men's Doubles * Kazan Summer Cup – Men's Singles * Kazan Summer Cup – Women's Doubles * Kazan Summer Cup – Women's Singles * Keio Challenger – Men's Doubles * Keio Challenger – Men's Singles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Kremlin Cup – Men's Doubles * Kremlin Cup – Men's Singles * Kremlin Cup – Women's Doubles * Kremlin Cup – Women's Singles * Kroger St. Jude International – Men's Doubles * Kroger St. Jude International – Men's Singles * Kroger St. Jude International – Women's Doubles * Kroger St. Jude International – Women's Singles * Kunming Open – Men's Doubles * Kunming Open – Men's Singles * Kunming Open – Women's Doubles * Kunming Open – Women's Singles * Launceston International – Men's Doubles * Launceston International – Men's Singles * Launceston Tennis International – Men's Doubles * Launceston Tennis International – Men's Singles * Launceston Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Launceston Tennis International – Women's Singles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Men's Doubles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Men's Singles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Women's Doubles * Lecoq Seoul Open – Women's Singles * Lipton Championships – Men's Doubles * Lipton Championships – Men's Singles * Lipton Championships – Women's Doubles * Lipton Championships – Women's Singles * Lipton International Players Championships – Men's Doubles * Lipton International Players Championships – Men's Singles * Lipton International Players Championships – Women's Doubles * Lipton International Players Championships – Women's Singles * Lisboa Belém Open – Men's Doubles * Lisboa Belém Open – Men's Singles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Men's Doubles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Men's Singles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Women's Doubles * Liuzhou International Challenger – Women's Singles * Liuzhou Open – Men's Doubles * Liuzhou Open – Men's Singles * Liuzhou Open – Women's Doubles * Liuzhou Open – Women's Singles * Manta Open – Trofeo Ricardo Delgado Aray – Doubles * Manta Open – Trofeo Ricardo Delgado Aray – Singles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Men's Doubles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Men's Singles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Women's Doubles * MasterCard Tennis Cup – Women's Singles * McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Doubles * McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Singles * McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Doubles * McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles * Medibank International Sydney – Men's Doubles * Medibank International Sydney – Men's Singles * Medibank International Sydney – Women's Doubles * Medibank International Sydney – Women's Singles * Medibank International – Men's Doubles * Medibank International – Men's Singles * Medibank International – Women's Doubles * Medibank International – Women's Singles * Melbourne Summer Set 1 – Men's Doubles * Melbourne Summer Set 1 – Men's Singles * Melbourne Summer Set 1 – Women's Singles * Miami Open – Men's Doubles * Miami Open – Men's Singles * Miami Open – Women's Doubles * Miami Open – Women's Singles * Morelos Open – Men's Doubles * Morelos Open – Men's Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca II – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca II – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Kenitra – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Kenitra – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Marrakech – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Marrakech – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Meknes – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Meknes – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Rabat – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Rabat – Singles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Tanger – Doubles * Morocco Tennis Tour – Tanger – Singles * Mubadala World Tennis Championship – Men's Singles * Murray Trophy – Glasgow – Doubles * Murray Trophy – Glasgow – Singles * Mutua Madrid Open – Men's Doubles * Mutua Madrid Open – Men's Singles * Mutua Madrid Open – Women's Doubles * Mutua Madrid Open – Women's Singles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Men's Doubles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Men's Singles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Women's Doubles * Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open – Women's Singles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Men's Doubles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Men's Singles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Women's Doubles * NASDAQ-100 Open – Women's Singles * National Bank Open – Men's Doubles * National Bank Open – Men's Singles * National Bank Open – Women's Doubles * National Bank Open – Women's Singles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Men's Doubles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Men's Singles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Women's Doubles * Nature's Way Sydney Tennis International – Women's Singles * New South Wales Open – Men's Doubles * New South Wales Open – Men's Singles * New South Wales Open – Women's Doubles * New South Wales Open – Women's Singles * New Zealand Open – Men's Singles * Ningbo Challenger – Men's Doubles * Ningbo Challenger – Men's Singles * Ningbo Challenger – Women's Doubles * Ningbo Challenger – Women's Singles * Nokia Open – Men's Doubles * Nokia Open – Men's Singles * Nokia Open – Women's Doubles * Nokia Open – Women's Singles * Nottingham Challenge – Men's Doubles * Nottingham Challenge – Men's Singles * Nottingham Challenge – Women's Doubles * Nottingham Challenge – Women's Singles * Nottingham Open – Men's Doubles * Nottingham Open – Men's Singles * Nottingham Open – Women's Doubles * Nottingham Open – Women's Singles * Nottingham Trophy – Men's Doubles * Nottingham Trophy – Men's Singles * Nottingham Trophy – Women's Doubles * Nottingham Trophy – Women's Singles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Men's Doubles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Men's Singles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Women's Doubles * ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Women's Singles * OTB International Open – Men's Doubles * OTB International Open – Men's Singles * OTB Open – Men's Doubles * OTB Open – Men's Singles * OTB Open – Women's Doubles * OTB Open – Women's Singles * OTB Schenectady Open – Men's Doubles * OTB Schenectady Open – Men's Singles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Men's Doubles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Men's Singles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Women's Doubles * Odlum Brown Vancouver Open – Women's Singles * Open Barletta – Città della Disfida – Doubles * Open Barletta – Città della Disfida – Singles * Open Castilla y León – Men's Doubles * Open Castilla y León – Men's Singles * Open Costa Adeje – Isla de Tenerife – Doubles * Open Costa Adeje – Isla de Tenerife – Singles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Men's Doubles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Men's Singles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Women's Doubles * Open Diputación Ciudad de Pozoblanco – Women's Singles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Men's Doubles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Men's Singles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Women's Doubles * Open Seguros Bolívar – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Chicago – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Houston – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Indian Wells – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – New Haven – Women's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Men's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Men's Singles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Women's Doubles * Oracle Challenger Series – Newport Beach – Women's Singles * Ordina Open – Men's Doubles * Ordina Open – Men's Singles * Ordina Open – Women's Doubles * Ordina Open – Women's Singles * Pacific Life Open – Men's Doubles * Pacific Life Open – Men's Singles * Pacific Life Open – Women's Doubles * Pacific Life Open – Women's Singles * Peters International – Men's Doubles * Peters International – Men's Singles * Peters International – Women's Doubles * Peters International – Women's Singles * Peters NSW Open – Men's Singles * Peters NSW Open – Women's Doubles * Peters NSW Open – Women's Singles * Pilot Pen International – Men's Doubles * Pilot Pen International – Men's Singles * Pilot Pen International – Women's Doubles * Pilot Pen International – Women's Singles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Men's Doubles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Men's Singles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Women's Doubles * Pilot Pen Tennis – Women's Singles * Pingshan Open – Men's Doubles * Pingshan Open – Men's Singles * Pingshan Open – Women's Doubles * Pingshan Open – Women's Singles * Player's Canadian Open – Men's Singles * Player's Canadian Open – Women's Doubles * Player's Canadian Open – Women's Singles * Portugal Open – Men's Doubles * Portugal Open – Men's Singles * Portugal Open – Women's Doubles * Portugal Open – Women's Singles * President's Cup (tennis) – Men's Doubles * President's Cup (tennis) – Men's Singles * President's Cup (tennis) – Women's Doubles * President's Cup (tennis) – Women's Singles * President's Cup – Men's Doubles * President's Cup – Men's Singles * President's Cup – Women's Doubles * President's Cup – Women's Singles * Queen's Club Championships – Men's Doubles * Queen's Club Championships – Men's Singles * Queen's Club Championships – Wheelchair Doubles * Queen's Club Championships – Wheelchair Singles * Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles * Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles * Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles * Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles * Ricoh Open – Men's Doubles * Ricoh Open – Men's Singles * Ricoh Open – Women's Doubles * Ricoh Open – Women's Singles * Rio Open – Men's Doubles * Rio Open – Men's Singles * Rio Open – Women's Doubles * Rio Open – Women's Singles * Ritro Slovak Open – Men's Doubles * Ritro Slovak Open – Men's Singles * Ritro Slovak Open – Women's Doubles * Ritro Slovak Open – Women's Singles * Rogers Cup – Men's Doubles * Rogers Cup – Men's Singles * Rogers Cup – Women's Doubles * Rogers Cup – Women's Singles * Rogers Masters – Men's Doubles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Men's Doubles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Men's Singles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Women's Doubles * Rosmalen Grass Court Championships – Women's Singles * Samsung Securities Cup – Men's Doubles * Samsung Securities Cup – Men's Singles * Samsung Securities Cup – Women's Doubles * Samsung Securities Cup – Women's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Bogotá – Men's Doubles * Seguros Bolívar Open Bogotá – Men's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Bogotá – Women's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Men's Doubles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Men's Singles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Women's Doubles * Seguros Bolívar Open Medellín – Women's Singles * Serbia Open – Men's Doubles * Serbia Open – Men's Singles * Serbia Open – Women's Doubles * Serbia Open – Women's Singles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Men's Doubles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Men's Singles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Women's Doubles * Shenzhen Longhua Open – Women's Singles * Slovak Open – Men's Doubles * Slovak Open – Men's Singles * Slovak Open – Women's Doubles * Slovak Open – Women's Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Boys' Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Girls' Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Men's Doubles * Sony Ericsson Open – Men's Singles * Sony Ericsson Open – Women's Doubles * Sony Ericsson Open – Women's Singles * Sony Open Tennis – Men's Doubles * Sony Open Tennis – Men's Singles * Sony Open Tennis – Women's Doubles * Sony Open Tennis – Women's Singles * South American Open – Men's Singles * South Australian Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Soweto Open – Men's Doubles * Soweto Open – Men's Singles * Soweto Open – Women's Doubles * Soweto Open – Women's Singles * Stockholm Open – Men's Doubles * Stockholm Open – Men's Singles * Stockton Challenger – Men's Doubles * Stockton Challenger – Men's Singles * Stockton Challenger – Women's Doubles * Stockton Challenger – Women's Singles * Strabag Prague Open – Men's Doubles * Strabag Prague Open – Men's Singles * Strabag Prague Open – Women's Doubles * Strabag Prague Open – Women's Singles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * Suntory Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * Surbiton Trophy – Men's Doubles * Surbiton Trophy – Men's Singles * Surbiton Trophy – Women's Doubles * Surbiton Trophy – Women's Singles * Swedish Open – Men's Doubles * Swedish Open – Men's Singles * Swedish Open – Women's Doubles * Swedish Open – Women's Singles * Sydney International – Men's Doubles * Sydney International – Men's Singles * Sydney International – Women's Doubles * Sydney International – Women's Singles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Men's Doubles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Men's Singles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Women's Doubles * São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Women's Singles * TEAN International – Men's Doubles * TEAN International – Men's Singles * TEAN International – Women's Doubles * TEAN International – Women's Singles * Tampere Open – Men's Doubles * Tampere Open – Men's Singles * Tampere Open – Women's Doubles * Tampere Open – Women's Singles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Men's Doubles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Men's Singles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Women's Doubles * Tennis Championships of Maui – Women's Singles * Tianjin Health Industry Park – Men's Singles * Topshelf Open – Men's Doubles * Topshelf Open – Men's Singles * Topshelf Open – Women's Doubles * Topshelf Open – Women's Singles * Traralgon International – Men's Doubles * Traralgon International – Men's Singles * Traralgon International – Women's Doubles * Traralgon International – Women's Singles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Men's Doubles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Men's Singles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Women's Doubles * U.S. Clay Court Championships – Women's Singles * U.S. National Championships – Men's Doubles * U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles * U.S. National Championships – Women's Doubles * U.S. National Championships – Women's Singles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Men's Singles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles * U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships – Women's Singles * U.S. Professional Indoor – Men's Singles * UNICEF Open – Men's Doubles * UNICEF Open – Men's Singles * UNICEF Open – Women's Doubles * UNICEF Open – Women's Singles * US Open – Boys' Doubles * US Open – Boys' Singles * US Open – Girls' Doubles * US Open – Girls' Singles * US Open – Men's Doubles * US Open – Men's Singles * US Open – Mixed Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles * US Open – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles * US Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * US Open – Wheelchair Women's Singles * US Open – Women's Doubles * US Open – Women's Singles * Uruguay Open – Men's Doubles * Uruguay Open – Men's Singles * Uruguay Open – Women's Doubles * Uruguay Open – Women's Singles * Volvo Open – Men's Doubles * Volvo Open – Men's Singles * Volvo Open – Women's Doubles * Volvo Open – Women's Singles * Western & Southern Open – Men's Doubles * Western & Southern Open – Men's Singles * Western & Southern Open – Women's Doubles * Western & Southern Open – Women's Singles * Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Men's Doubles * Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Quad Doubles * Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Women's Doubles * Wheelchair Tennis Masters – Men's Singles * Wheelchair Tennis Masters – Quad Singles * Wheelchair Tennis Masters – Women's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Boys' Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Boys' Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Invitation Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Men's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Mixed Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Senior Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Men's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Men's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Quad Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Quad Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Women's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Women's Singles * Wimbledon Championships – Women's Doubles * Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Men's Doubles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Men's Singles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Women's Doubles * Winnipeg National Bank Challenger – Women's Singles * World Hard Court Championships – Men's Doubles * World Hard Court Championships – Men's Singles * World Hard Court Championships – Mixed Doubles * World Hard Court Championships – Women's Doubles * World Hard Court Championships – Women's Singles * Zagreb Open – Men's Doubles * Zagreb Open – Men's Singles * Zagreb Open – Women's Doubles * Zagreb Open – Women's Singles * Zhuhai Open – Men's Doubles * Zhuhai Open – Men's Singles * Zhuhai Open – Women's Doubles * Zhuhai Open – Women's Singles * du Maurier Open – Men's Doubles * du Maurier Open – Men's Singles * du Maurier Open – Women's Doubles * du Maurier Open – Women's Singles |
@ Chess: Thanks for closing this complicated mess. But I have to ask why you say "there is a consensus to let the editors in the tennis topic area decide the capitalization issue themselves". It seemed to me that a majority of respondents had good policy and guideline based reasons to want to fix the over-capitalization that appears on some (but not all) of the tennis pages. Where are you seeing a consensus to let that project keep it this messy way that they claim is based on a compromise with the multi-sport project? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Hi @
Chess: this RfC was never about creating new rules but a ruling on the application of existing "rules" in a particular circumstance. There was never any particular proposal on the table for a change to
WP:AT. The possibility of a change to that policy was only raised three days ago. This RfC started with the good faith assumption that the dash was a permitted construction. The issue of permissibility was only identified quite late and
WP:AT is quite prescriptive in this regard. Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another ...
and Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.
The close states that dashes should be allowed for the future
, but it also states there is no consensus to ban dashes in sports event titles
. Where does the close stand in regard to this inconsistency with
WP:AT? Can (or should) we consider a proposal that would make the dashed construction for sports event titles acceptable within WP:AT or is the close saying we should just ignore this. Regards,
Cinderella157 (
talk)
02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
04:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)In reference to the quote in the close: "While I am not familiar with the language or syntax of templates, this is potentially an opportunity to improve the flexibility of the templates."
and the conclusion drawn by the close: I don't really see the appeal of this refutation as it didn't address how this potentially massive issue will be resolved and just proposed other people doing more work to fix the template issues.
I proposed a solution that did not require a change to templates and did not advocate for a change that would necessitate a change to templates. The quote was in the context of existing problems with the templates - if that course was chosen. If the close has a valid conclusion to make in regard to the template issue, it should be able to be made without misrepresenting what I have said. If the close has an invalid conclusion on the matter, it should definitely not be made by misrepresenting what I have said. Either way, the misrepresentation is the issue and misrepresentation is a matter of
WP:CIVILITY.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
09:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we update the page, specifically WP:COMMONNAME to reflect the guidelines in WP:GENDERID and MOS:GENDERID? At the moment, the COMMONNAME section doesn't explicitly say what to do in cases where the common name isn't what the person's own name was and thus leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. For example, in cases where the majority of sources report a person's name to be X and use the name X for them, though noting they were transgender and called themselves Y, COMMONNAME has been used to argue for continuing to call them X. Since COMMONNAME is a policy, unlike the gender related style guides, it's been argued it overrides considerations of their gender identity. While there are many references to checking the applicable guidelines in specific cases, I think that an explicit reference to cases of trans people and the appropriate guides would help Wikipedia. TheTranarchist ( talk) 16:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." and "
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.(bold mine) Policy already establishes several broad exceptions for not strictly obeying the "use the most common name available in reliable sources" guidance. Deadnaming a transgendered person who has changed their name to match their gender is "inaccurate", and it's perfectly allowable by policy to use the accurate name. I'm not sure we need more than that. -- Jayron 32 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Subcat guideline § Naming convention. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
21:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently discovered the article Raleigh murders. I am not sure this is an appropriate title given that many murders have happened in that city and the sources are not referring to these killings under this naming convention consistently. Not really sure what the topic should be called. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Should we, in deciding whether to use a natural disambiguation, give extra weight to how natural the consequent names are (per WP:CRITERIA)? Should we give extra weight to official names? As written, the guideline is quite clear for common nouns where two options are similar, but my take of WP:NATDAB and WP:COMMONNAME is that we should only use names that are more natural, and are at least in common use, giving a preference to the nat dabs only as the deciding factor if they are more natural than the disambiguated commonest name.
I ask because there is current discussion on whether to apply official names to a number of New Zealand places as natural disambiguation ( Talk:Cam_River_(Canterbury)#Requested_move_22_March_2022), but many of these official names are particularly rare in use, and result in substantially less natural titles. The implication of the RM is that the official name carries its own weight beyond its popular usage or naturalness. — HTGS ( talk) 05:37, 25 March 2022 (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.
There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#How common to be sufficiently common for natural disambiguation? to reword WP:NATURAL to make it more restrictive. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move for Schutzstaffel that has prompted debate over several aspects of this policy, including common names and precision. As a result, y'all may be interested in weighing in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has over 1,300 articles with titles beginning "U.S.", including, e.g., U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks, U.S. kill or capture strategy in Iraq, U.S. senator bibliography (congressional memoirs), and U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps (though more than half of all "U.S." titles are highway routes), and about 300 articles with titles beginning "US", including, e.g., US General Accounting Office Building, US Breastfeeding Report Card 2014, US military watches, US public opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement, US state laws and policies for ICT accessibility. We should have consistency, but what should be the standard, and should things like names of military units or route numbers be treated differently from generic examinations of the country's policies and activities? BD2412 T 22:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. CMOS has been showing a disturbing pattern in recent years of following trends in British English which make no sense because they appear to be attributable to the UK's gross underfunding and incompetent mismanagement of its schools. We have a lot of British expats here in California who fled to America to teach in schools that still value good writing.Nice to see that American arrogance and sense of superiority is alive and kicking! Well done for reminding us! Just to be clear, just because you write things in a certain way does not make it correct. Nor does it make everyone who does not do it that way wrong or incompetent. There is absolutely no need to insult another country because you can't cope with stylistic differences. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Attempting a priori standardization of U.S. or US is doomed to failure. We have redirects for a reason. We cannot dictate to our readers or our sources which is "correct" in every usage and even if we pick one for the sake of consistency neither the sources nor or our readers are consistent. It is neither useful nor necessary to have this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This discussion references and basically reiterates Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 60#RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events, that was just closed this January. (I'm taking the liberty of adding a "2" to this one; please don't give your RfC the exact same name as another RfC you're going to be referring to, it causes all sorts of confusion.) Unlike what the opener here writes, that was not actually closed with "reached "no consensus" on any matters", it seems to have been closed with dashes should be allowed but no consensus on format. If someone disagrees, we can ask User:Chess, the closer, to confirm, but that's what the bold letters say pretty clearly to me. Now, consensus can change but rarely over only three months. But, in any case, here we are.
Question 1: permitting dash-separated titles for sports events: I count 8 "agree/support" and "6 "disagree/oppose". Now arguments are more important than counting, but the main arguments for seem to be that dashes are a clearer or perfectly natural way of writing article titles, the arguments against are that they're unnatural, and not how sources refer to these topics, and the status quo suffices. Those seem to balance out, honestly; I don't see many or even any citations of sources either way, just assertions. Without evidence all these seem to be just a matter of personal taste. And we'd need a fairly clear consensus "against" to overturn the clear decision of the former RfC. So, again, or still, as per the last RFC, dash-separated titles for sports events are permitted.
Fewer participated in Question 2: ordering in a dash-separated title for sports events. Again, there aren't a lot of evidence based arguments, just "it's natural" for Option 1, vs "we should be flexible" for Option 3, with a balanced number of people supporting each. Cinderella157 made a long argument for option 2, but it doesn't look as if anyone else was convinced, and I'm not sure I understood it myself. Also two people interjected that it's not at all clear that 1 and 2 should be the only options. So consensus against mandating option 2, but a split decision between option 1 and being flexible, and almost as many saying these shouldn't be the only options, so a clear no consensus on format.
Finally, fewest of all participated in Question 3: amending WP:AT, two against, one for. I'm going to read this as against making any additions for dash-separated sports titles, not "let's make this decision but not tell anyone about it", which would be perverse. While Cinderella157 believes dashes would otherwise be forbidden under WP:QUALIFIER, others don't, because it's not clear that this is an example of disambiguation, and WP:TSC, for example, specifically allows dashes in titles in certain cases. No consensus to amend.
In other words: basically what the same titled RfC three months ago decided. Anyone who wants to reopen this question in only another three months ... maybe don't? -- GRuban ( talk) 01:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Background
The previous RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events was initiated to address matters of capitalisation in such article titles. Dash-separated article titles are extensively used for recurrent sporting tournaments, such as the Olympic games or annual events, where there are multiple events being played for. They are used for an article on a particular event being played for in a particular tournament's year - eg 2014 US Open – Men's Singles. That article is about the "men's singles" event being played for at the 2014 US Open. The article title has been described as being a "title – subtitle" construction. This construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. The dashed construction inherently has a disambiguation function. The "title – subtitle" also creates a sub-article relationship.
Well through the course of the earlier RfC, it was identified that dash-separated titles for sports events are explicitly inconsistent with prescriptive advice at WP:AT.
Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.
Do not create subsidiary articles: Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently.
Furthermore, at WP:TSC, we are advised to avoid the use of the dash in article titles. This is because of the need to create a redirect from the title that would use the hyphen in place of the dash. This is because keyboards do not provide accessibility to the dash characters.
The former RfC reached "no consensus" on any matters.
Outline of RfC
The RfC is presented as three questions. Please indicate your !vote for each question in the section following each section. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Rather than amend individual sections of WP:AT, the ultimate intention is to add a section to WP:AT that explicitly permits dash-separated titles for sports events. While the second and third questions might assume prior support, support is not presumed. To be clear, support for an outcome at one question cannot reasonably be construed or inferred to be support for an outcome at another question. Participants are therefore encouraged to respond to all of the questions (even though they might disagree with the first question) without fear that their views might be misconstrued. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
General comments
Hi, Dicklyon, Cinderella157, Fyunck(click), Wjemather, Lee Vilenski, Amakuru, Ravenswing, Sod25k, Sportsfan77777, Joseph2302, Jayron32, GhostOfDanGurney, Iffy, GraemeLeggett, Mjquinn_id, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Tony1, Montanabw, Kaffe42, BilledMammal, Herostratus, Thryduulf, SmokeyJoe, HawkAussie - you have contributed to the previous RfC and may wish to comment here. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Sod25m per new name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm gonna need some article examples, for me to fully understand what's being proposed. GoodDay ( talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Should two part dash-separated titles be explicitly permitted for sports event articles?
This question goes to specifically to acknowledging dash-separated titles for sports events as an exception to WP:QUALIFIER. The question does not assume an order of the two parts about the dash. This is addressed in the next question.
Please respond: Agree to explicitly support or Disagree to explicitly not support.
Discussion, comments, !votes
Comment: If two part dash-separated titles for sports event articles are such a good idea (as suggested in the previous RfC), there should be no issue with agreeing with the proposition. The dash construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years. One might argue that this does not constitute disambiguation and does not create a conflict with WP:QUALIFIER. To my mind, that would be splitting hairs. If it is such a good idea, then it would be much better to simply resolve the matter by agreement with the question posed (or not). Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
From the discussion in the previous RfC (above) it became reasonably clear that the dashed construction is not a WP:COMMONNAME. It is not a construction found in the natural language of running text in sources, though it may be found be found in headings such as tables and in web pages. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You have not provide evidence of actual usage of the dashed construction in prose.and associated discussion). Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This question is contingent on a consensus supporting question 1. The present usage of dash-separated title for sports events is in the form of "Title - subtitle" (eg 2014 US Open – Men's Singles). This creates an inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT. The options proposed are:
Option 1. That dash-separated titles for sports events shall be in the form of the example 2014 US Open – Men's Singles. This is an explicit exception to the inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT (ie it permits what can be considered a sub-article relationship).
Option 2. That dash-separated titles for sports events shall be in the form of the example Men's Singles – 2014 US Open. This is explicitly complies with WP:TITLEFORMAT. It does not imply a subarticle relationship.
Option 3. That either format in option 1 or option 2 be permitted. This is an explicity permits an exception to WP:TITLEFORMAT but does not prescribe the format to be used.
Discussion, comments, !votes
Comment: One could argue that the "title-subtitle" presently used in the two part dashed constructions do not create an "article-subarticle" relationship. To my mind, that would be splitting hairs. If the "title-subtitle" construction is such a good idea, it would be ultimately be much better to reach an agreement (option 1) that it is a good idea (or not - in which case, there are two alternatives presented). Cinderella157 ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This question and subsequent questions are contingent on outcomes at Q1 and Q2.
That
WP:AT be amended by way of a separate section to recognise that dash-separated title for sports events are an acknowledged exception to what is otherwise written at
WP:AT.
Discussion, comments, !votes
Comment: Assuming there is support at least for Q1, the proposition is to create a separate section to record that the dash separated construction is permitted for sports articles. Individual parts of WP:AT could be amended but this would require a consensus on the specific amendments to be made at several places. IMHO, it would be easier to construct a separate section permitting the dashed construction in sports articles notwithstanding anything else written at WP:AT. The benefit of such a section is that it would clearly record that the dashed construction is permitted. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
closed as allowing dashed titles in these articles.In the #Post close section, the closer made specific comments that go to that matter, and ultimately, the framing of this RfC. There has been no misrepresentation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The dash construction distinguishes different events played for within a particular tournament's year. It also distinguishes the same event being played for across different tournament years.You may disagree that this inherently serves as a form of disambiguation but I can't see how. Not every case has to have a disambiguation page as a parent article (eg primary topics don't and cases with two alternatives use a hatnote from the primary topic. In cases using dashes, the templates serve to navigate in the same way as a disambiguation page. If the dashes are such a good construction using the "title-subtitle" format, then the natural outcome of this RfC will be to support this through the question rather than arguing about semantics and interpretations. You will note that the RfC is actually premised on an outcome to support such a construction. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Local consensus does not override but gives supplemental advice. I acknowledge that "men's" singles (and like) are notable. I acknowledge that the US Open (tennis) and other tournaments are notable. I acknowledge that the 2014 US Open (tennis) event is notable and even that the winners and particular players are notable. What is not yet clear is that the 2014 US Open – Men's Singles is sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. Furthermore, that it passes WP:NOTNEWS. I am open to being convinced that a substantial number of articles taking the dashed form are individually notable and therefore justify consistency as a rationale for acknowledging the construction. I am also open to any other cogent arguments that are for or aganst the construction being acknowledged. Please convince me. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This message provides notice that I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#2022 revision proposal on a proposed rewrite/update to the text of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Your comments are welcome. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Should
WP:NATURAL and
WP:NCDAB be rewritten to reflect that natural disambiguation should generally only be used to settle titles where there are near equal choices such as
Chinese whispers v
Telephone (game) (
RM) and
Handa Island v
Handa, Scotland (
RM) and not generally allow significantly less common titles trump the most common such as
Bus (computing) v
Computer bus (
RM) and
Fan (machine) v
Mechanical fan (
RM)? In the 2nd sentence at
WP:NATURAL I propose to change "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."
to "Natural disambiguation can generally be used where there are titles that are near equal choices (such as
French language v
French (language)), where its otherwise disputed such is best (like
Chinese whispers v
Telephone (game)) or where adding a qualifier is difficult or impossible like
Sarah Jane Brown where plain
Sarah Brown is ambiguous. In general qualified titles are preferred to natural disambiguation if the choice is not near equal even if the title would be understood, thus
New York (state) is preferred to
New York State and
Bray, Berkshire is preferred to
Bray on Thames, in particular do not, use obscure or
made-up names".
I don't mind if all or some of this is in a footnote if this is too long and I welcome any suggestions for better examples. @
Born2cycle,
Amakuru, and
RGloucester:
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not, however, use obscure or made-up namesto
Do not, however, use significantly less common or made-up names? Ruбlov ( talk) 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
What sources refer to 'New York State' as 'New York (state)'?That is the same as asking "What sources refer to the planet Mercury as 'Mercury (planet)'? It is called plain old 'New York' in the context of states, [2] and the parenthetical disambiguation mirrors that fact. StonyBrook ( talk) 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not, however, use made-up names or uncommon names, even when they are the official name or understandable. Natural disambiguation such as New York State will continue to be an option and so the dispute there will not be resolved, but it should address the general issue which goes beyond more ambiguous options such as that.
Natural disambiguation can generally be used … where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game)). It’s also not clear that this change reflects a community consensus based on RMs in general, especially when many of the examples given were close calls or lacked a consensus entirely. And maybe this is a different problem, but if we’re being this verbose, I would like the guidance to include an explanation for why New York State is looked down on, while French language isn’t. — HTGS ( talk) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Primergrey: I was partially reverting an edit from two days earlier that appeared to provide additional weight to the "consistency" argument without a consensus to do so. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
18:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about an update to chemistry naming conventions occuring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Updating_naming_conventions_for_groups. Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding naming conventions for events and incidents occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guidance at WP:NCEVENTS out of step with application of it. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:CRITERIA and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Wikipedia:CRITERIA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
21:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Improper acceptance of a new proposal as policy. —usernamekiran
(talk)
06:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This example came from Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58#SMALLDETAILS and plurals, it was removed by User:162 etc. on the grounds of the article title being Cricket (insect). As far as I can see SMALLDETAILS doesn't just deal with titles as such it also deals with WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs so the example of a title that is relatively unambiguous as a plural even if the singular is far more ambiguous seems like a good example. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The Médecins Sans Frontières → Doctors Without Borders discussion at Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières#Requested move 23 August 2022 may be of interest. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing conflict, occasionally moving to edit-warring by single-purpose editors (see Sydney, where the article had to be protected for a while), concerning the insertion of Indigenous place names in the first sentence of the lede for articles on Australian places. There are conflicting interpretations of the wording in WP:PLACE. The "General Guidelines" section there begins:
The wording under question in Australian contexts is this:
…or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place…
This wording is being used as justification to insert additional names into the first sentence of an article using the apparently permissible reason that before European settlement in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, Indigenous Australians lived in Australia and had their own languages and names for places. Eg.
Jelly Bean ( Quenya: Gummibar) is a sweet little town in New South Wales.
Such Indigenous names are rarely in current common use or have significant literature, though there are well known exceptions such as Uluru or the many instances where the European colonisers simply appropriated the existing name for their own use, generally Anglicising it to some extent, such as in Canberra. The sort of sources being used to justify additional Indigenous names are generally specialist or tertiary sources, such as a sentence on the town council website eg. "Jelly Bean (or Gummibar as the Aboriginals used to call it) was first settled in 1806 by Captain Harry Beau who farmed sugar cane and koala bears."
There is no dispute over a "Name" or "Etymology" or "Early history" section in the content giving well-sourced details of the previous occupants and their languages and culture and what they called the region, but the insertion in the lead sentence of an archaic name that is not in wide current use, does not appear on maps or in GPS devices, and is found only in a few specialist or tertiary sources, is causing some hearted discussion. Some editors feel that they can redress some of the evils of colonisation by recognising the first Australians in adding an Indigenous name to as many Australian articles as they can find council webpage sources for. It would be helpful in minimising ongoing disruption and conflict if the wording noted above could be clarified to either support or reject such usage as a blanket rule.
I don't think that we are at the RfC stage yet, though if POV-pushing continues we will be. This question has been raised previously at the project talk page but has not gained any traction, and I would like comments from editors specialising in this area of naming conventions. Looking through the extensive talk page discussion archives there shows little or no discussion on using Indigenous names; this section appears to be more about previous foreign language names used in English literature at various times eg. Istanbul was previously known as Constantinople and Byzantium and these names are found in English maps and books and other texts of the relevant period. Indigenous Australian placenames are rarely found as standalone names in English-language texts. -- Pete ( talk) 08:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Jonathan Kestenbaum, Baron Kestenbaum
Actually, it looks as though we are all over the place with these. /info/en/?search=Category:Labour_Party_(UK)_life_peers
2603:7000:2143:8500:346E:7EDB:D6A:77B5 ( talk) 00:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
To me it seems very clear that the {{ shortcut}} box mentioning WP:SINGULAR ought to merged with the one mentioning WP:ARTSINGLE. Those are clearly synonymous, so I moved the mention of WP:SINGULAR to where WP:ARTSINGLE is, i.e. to the specific subject that discusses whether article titles should be singular or plural. However, there is still an inconsistency regarding the other redirects WP:NOUN, WP:DEFINITE and WP:LOWERCASE, which still refer to the parent section rather that the specific subsections associated with each of their names. I suggest these should all redirect to the specific subsections associated with their names. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It's bugged me for a while that we don't have a practical guide to determining the commonname for a topic, so I finally wrote up a draft of such a guide here: User:Colin M/Determining commonname. After I do another pass of edits, I was thinking of linking it from this page's "See also". Any feedback/edits are welcome.
The closest thing we already have along these lines is Wikipedia:Search engine test, but that page is kind of a messy mishmash of advice on using search engines to establish notability (which was the historical focus of the page many years ago, but has since become a deprecated practice), using search engines to find sources for building out an article, and generic search engine advice. It barely talks about naming, and mostly deals with general-purpose web searches, which are basically useless for commonname purposes. Colin M ( talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a bit frustrated with WP:NCEVENTS implementation: it's routinely challenged in move requests, usually by more novice editors (but not always) on the grounds that a year is not needed to disambiguate an incident ( WP:NOYEAR explicitly states that a year is only needed for disambiguation purposes, whereas the rest of the guideline doesn't). A prime illustration of this is this discussion. However, I thought the primary idea of the naming convention was to make titles WP:CONSISTENT with each other. Is this a common tension among other naming conventions? What is the best way to go about this? I've considered altering WP:NOYEAR through RfC regarding the "disambiguate" wording, but I think this needs some discussion beforehand. Pilaz ( talk) 11:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognizean article title better if it comes with the year, with few exceptions. The problem is that one can frame the scope of "the subject area" in any way they want: for 2007 Glasgow Airport attack, for example, the attack is probably not recognizable for someone familiar with the topic of terrorism (myself included), but probably recognizable for someone familiar with the topic of Scottish terrorism. I suppose the "disambiguate only" type of !vote is a reference to WP:PRECISION, too. Pilaz ( talk) 16:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)