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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
I've been harboring a rather radical idea for a while, which would require a minor technical change and potentially a minor policy change, the bottom line being:
This technical change would allow that the articles located at
Mercury (planet) and
Mercury (element) both have the same title displayed at the top of the page, Mercury. Their unique (disambiguated) page names would appear only in page URL, possibly in the search box, and maybe somewhere in a subtitle for convenience of editors.
This would allow hiding our artificial disambiguators from the readers, particularly ugly ones such as
John Smith (English footballer, born June 1983) or
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) -- both would be titled by their COMMONNAMEs "John Smith" and "Sarah Brown", and disambiguation handled mainly by
WP:short descriptions (from the reader's perspective). I foresee that such a change could alleviate the persistent flood of primary topic challenges and requested page moves. Note that we would not want (or allow) gibberish page names such as Q78923714.
Technical details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure whether the current MediaWiki supports the proposed setup, or if some additional coding would be necessary. Judging on Wikidata, the capability is already there. Check out mw:Extension:Display Title (I have not deep-dived there). Additional accompanying technical changes should include:
Eventual (but not immediate) policy changes, subject to further consensus, may be:
|
Before I jump the gun and go tothe Village pump, I'd like to test the waters here and hear the concerns and proposals first. No such user ( talk) 09:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see the RFC which is currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
We have articles about two institutions titled "Newman University." One is Newman University, Birmingham and the other is Newman University, Wichita. There is also a disambiguation page at Newman University. Should the titles of those two article be changed to place the location in parentheses? I ask only because I'm not terribly familiar with this particular policy. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 00:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Article titles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I know there are lots of hatnotes, but please add another one:
{{This|the policy governing article titles|technical information about article titles|Wikipedia:Page name}}
I was surprised to find that this was a policy; I figured a page called "Article titles" would provide technical information about titles, and it took a while to find the page that did provide that information. 175.39.61.121 ( talk) 03:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there much in the info page that is not already in the policy, or that a "see also" wouldn't suffice?— Bagumba ( talk) 10:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic
intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same titleapplies in this situation, no? The primary reason the IP wanted this edit request added is because they believed Wikipedia:Article titles would give technical information on page names and didn't, and I can definitely see how someone would come to that conclusion. Nor would I say the 2 pages are
simply related, as one is about how to name an article procedurally and another is about how the names of pages work on Wikipedia at a more technical level. — Sirdog ( talk) 23:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topicWikipedia:Article titles#Special characters delves into some technical aspects already that directly affect title naming.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
(I don't know where the best place to post this is, but WP:NAMECHANGES redirects here, so I figured I might post it here.)
When is the exact time a company's article (and its related pages) should be moved to reflect its new name? Oftentimes, companies only announce the date on which they are set to adopt a new name, but not the time that the change is set to take place. So, should it be:
I ask this because Warner Bros. Discovery recently announced the rebranding of DC Films to DC Studios, which is set to take effect on November 1, but DC Films (the company) and Warner Bros. Entertainment (its parent) is headquartered in Hollywood while WBD (the parent's parent) is headquartered in NYC. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
no source, no name changeis correct, if a previous source said "Company XYZ will rebrand as Company ABC next Monday" then we do have a source that indicates Company XYZ will rebrand as Company ABC on Monday. A source that comes out on Monday saying "Company XYZ has rebranded as Company ABC" isn't needed, and in some cases such a report may not happen, so it may take days until we actually get a reliable source that uses the new name. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".Is there any language that you need clarified? Cullen328 ( talk) 04:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
the guideline makes no mention about page moves, I'm going to assume that moving a page to its new name on the date it is set to do so is permissibleis evidence of a deep misunderstanding. A page move, after all, is the only way to change the title of an existing article. So, it is unnecessary to mention page moves in such a guideline, just as it is unnecessary to mention hammers every time you talk about nails. We move pages about renamed topics to a new name only after the preponderance of reliable sources entirely independent of the topic start using the new name. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I am posting here instead of the talk page of the corresponding page since this is more actively watched. In the section where it talks about using the birth date of the person when there isn't a good qualifier to use. For example: Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914). In my experience, there seems to be very few articles that use these qualifier. Why not Charles Hawtrey (1858-1923) or Charles Hawtrey (1914-1988)? On articles about royalty, I see a lot of articles that the form John Smith (1842-1903). Example: Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817). I am hoping to get some input regarding how these titles should be used and hopefully develop better conventions on what to do with these titles. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an existing video game at Hades 2 and a recently announced one that is Hades II (currently a redirect). Hatnotes will obviously be used to point back and forth on these, but is the different between "2" and "II" sufficient to distinguish titles or should these be disambiguated further (which for video games will be by year)? Masem ( t) 21:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I finally put together some text regarding this issue at Draft:Base names should not redirect to disambiguated pages, since the topic seems to keep coming up every once in a while at WP:RFD or WP:RM, and citing WP:QUALIFIER doesn't seem to satisfactorily get the point across. Open to any suggestions before I move to project space. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 03:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently there is significant disagreement about how common is "also commonly called" and not "obscure" as intended by WP:NATURAL:
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names.
See: Talk:Electric_battery#Requested_move_25_December_2022_--_Post-close_discussion. -- В²C ☎ 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
There are articles at both Delta Phi Epsilon (social) and Delta Phi Epsilon (professional). There are also a large number of Greek Letter Organizations with List of XXX Chapters articles or redirects. For an article or redirect for a chapter list for Delta Phi Epsilon (social) is List of Delta Phi Epsilon (social) chapters acceptable, or should it be List of Delta Phi Epsilon chapters (social). The first seems more parallel with the article, but the second seems more parallel with the dab term being last. Naraht ( talk) 14:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Should footwear article titles (shoes and socks) be singular or plural? Please weigh in at move requests here and here if you care. — AjaxSmack 05:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
In a current renaming discussion at Talk:East Timor (target: Timor-Leste), User:Srnec opined "Sources from before 2020 (or 2000, or 1975) aren't going to disappear. They should still get a say, albeit of ever decreasing weighting." Has consideration been given here in the past of the extent to which recency comes to play in assessing the weight of sources considered in a WP:COMMONNAME determination?
Srnec offered one view, and it makes sense insofar as people come across names in old sources as well as new ones; if English speakers read about a place more often in texts from the 1940s than they do in contemporary media, then isn't what they call the place likely to be influenced by the other sources? Another view would be that only sources within the past X months should be considered, to answer the question: what are reliable sources now calling this place (without regard to whether these are the only sources that potential visitors to Wikipedia in search of further information about this place are reading).
A summary of the dichotomy here: are we more concerned with what, out in the wild, is currently being written or what's currently being read? And, certainly, there may be perspectives on this beyond those two.
If there's a strong enough feeling one way or another, should it be capture in the guideline?
Your thoughts? Largoplazo ( talk) 01:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Washington (state) is obviously disambiguated from all the other people and places with this name at Washington. But there are dozens of articles related to the state that I don't believe actually need this parenthetical disambiguation, for example List of lighthouses in Washington (state) doesn't need a disambiguation from another other List of lighthouses in Washington. The latter is now a redirect after User:Thrakkx moved it and 21 other articles to include (state). In several cases they also converted the original name to a dab page like List of high schools in Washington, but I don't think this is necessary either as "Washington, D.C." already has a different name (in some cases the title has "District of Columbia"). A hatnote would also work. Should there really be a parenthetical for all pages related to a main topic that has one or can that be just those that need it? Reywas92 Talk 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
already [have] a different name, but in the opening sentence of its article, we state that it is also known as just "Washington". Thrakkx ( talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if this is addressed elsewhere but I didn't find it--is there a policy on how allegations of titles are managed? It makes for poor sorting alphabetically when so many disparate articles regarding allegations are not titled with the subject first.
Similar issues with "interpretations of", "analysis of" etc. SmolBrane ( talk) 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I came to this page again from a discussion at Talk:May 1968 events in France. This edit by me is not related to any of the arguments from that discussion, however. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a RfC regarding article titles for boxing matches at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles. – 2. O. Boxing 11:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOSJAPAN § Why doesn't Wikipedia respect Japan?. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
In Category:Censuses by country, there are a number of page titles used. For example:
There should be a standard form, whether [Year country/demonym census] or [Year census of country]. There should possibly also be a standard to use lower-case. The former is more succinct, and similar to that used for Wikipedia:Articles on elections. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 06:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:TSC states that underscores cannot be used, but Category:Articles with underscores in the title seems to indicate otherwise. Should we reword this guidance, clarifying that the only limitation is that Wikipedia equates it with a space, thus "Hello_World" is the same title as "Hello World"? Hoof Hearted ( talk) 12:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This info could be mentioned in WP:CONCISE section.
Hundreds of people a day apparently look up "incarceration rates" or similar in Google search. A clear and shorter Wikipedia title effected a 4-fold 2-fold immediate increase in page views when reverting back to a shorter title:
See:
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
It still looks like a big jump in views. A 2-fold increase. That may not matter to you. Maybe you edit Wikipedia for the pure joy of wikitext, and not because it is an encyclopedia reaching vast numbers of people with easy to access, understandable info.
But I think others, many others, will disagree with you. And so a few lines in WP:CONCISE will help Wikipedia reach more clueless Trump and QAnon supporters (for example) who will more easily find accurate info. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I noticed on your talk page this quote: "It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia."
I would think the page title then is the most important factor in many cases in getting those readers here.
I don't know if I have the energy for a long WP:VPP discussion. I didn't think my request was such a big deal. It's obvious to me, but I deal with list pages with tables a lot. I use Google a lot to find them. I forgot to link to those thousands of "by country" pages. See:
I should clarify that the vast majority of page views on big sites come from Google/Bing/etc.. That's one reason they are big sites. Smaller sites may not necessarily be getting as large a percentage of views from commercial search engines. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) § Changing of naming conventions. :3 F4U ( they /it) 01:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm planning an article (not yet even ready for a sandbox draft) about an incident involving an airplane flight in New York City on September 11th, 2018. The flight in question was from New Delhi, India, and scheduled to land at JFK, ultimately being lucky enough to be able to make a safe landing in Newark (a suburb of New York City across the New Jersey border). The flight involved is Air India Flight 101; unfortunately, this airline and number match a more notable aircrash in 1966. What should the title of the new article be? Animal lover |666| 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
We have a missing article list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion based on topic names from the Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion, with odd formulations such as Africa, North: History of Dress; Ancient World: History of Dress. It seems like these Missing encyclopedic articles contains many improper page names. I think perhaps the Missing encyclopedic articles needs pruning and purging of bad page names? These names are showing up at WP:AFC/R for redirect creation -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 19:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Since the state changed its official name at some point, and thus the name referred to in the example is historical, consider replacing the example with one that doesn't need a potentially confusing clarification. Ideas: Llanfairpwllgwyngyll rather than its longer variants, many examples of Foo rather than Republic/Kingdom of Foo, Turing Award rather than ACM A. M. Turing Award. 73.223.72.200 ( talk) 22:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
A few more editors with a good understanding of WP title decision-making weighing in here would be good for the community: Talk:Mike_McCartney_(footballer)#Requested_move_6_May_2023. Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 06:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
But how? Help, please? TCFLightyears93 ( group chat / contributions) 18:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Owen Brewster about his common name. Please comment.-- User:Namiba 17:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that in some cases, what might be considered a WP:COMMONNAME is actually more slang or casual usage. Right now, I am thinking of how to reply to a name change proposal. I believe we should not necessarily use slang names, unless they are especially common. Gah4 ( talk) 21:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Article titles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Non-neutral but common names" section, please change "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to" to "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to", i.e. do not italicise "what readers" in the second half when it's not italicised in the first half. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:D999:8C1F:CA47:4F8B ( talk) 10:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
For a long time with regard to the name of sports stadiums with sponsored names, it has generally been an unwritten rule on sports stadium articles (particularly in UK football and rugby related ones) that these names are not used for the title unless the stadium has never had a non-sponsored name to avoid Wikipedia being seen to endorse commercial entities. Henceforth, I wish to formalise this by proposing that a section be added to the Article Titles policy stating:
For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "
Multiple local names" and "
Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions can
benefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow.
(emphasis added by me) The link in the second sentence points to WP:RFC. This seems like a very clear case where the link should point to WP:RM, as that's where article title disputes are handled at first. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:CONCISE. See RFC here:
Someone recently added "Estimated" to that article title. I find that many list/table articles explain in the article and/or article references about the level of estimation involved, and how the data was acquired.
Does it really need to be in the article title too? The current article there, and its references, already explains that they are estimates. The main reference there (at the reference site) explains their sourcing. Many data points in list articles are based on surveys, for example. Editors can add as much detail as they want in an article about the reference methodology. We need to keep article titles shorter if we want them to be understood in the truncated titles that major search engines present to readers. See my previous talk section here. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Whether it is many or most list articles that are estimated is not my point." yet the title of this section you created suggests that that is the argument. The majority of 'list' articles are not lists of estimates; again, this is trivially verifiable. Where an article's content is based on surveys and proxies, then it's appropriate - it's misleading to title an article as an emphatic when it's not. Filling in more data in a table doesn't change that the values are still estimates. In the case of firearm ownership, the estimates range from 'maybe close' to 'wildy disparate'. This inquiry should be retitled, since it's misleading, it should instead be something along the lines of "Should "estimated" be added to articles where it's not obvious to the general reader that the data isn't strict?" cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Most? Absolutely not. Most list articles are not even numerical, where the word "estimated" wouldn't be appropriate at all. In this one article title? Possibly. Discuss it on the article talk page, and reach a consensus. -- Jayron 32 14:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Generally, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, sometimes it does have articles about words (as distinct from the concepts they represent). Currently there's a discussion on Talk:Cisgender about the problem that – despite the short description "Gender identity descriptor" – some editors are editing the lead to discuss the concept, while the rest of the article is about the word as such. @ Mathglot: tells me I should bring my own suggestion here, because it may have wider applicability:
The first part seems to me consistent with other titles that add "(book)" or "(film)" where, absent those additions, the title might be taken as referring to a person, place, or event. In this case, I am suggesting it even though there is no other article to disambiguate it from, just to reduce misunderstanding of the referent. Broadly, the same might apply to any other meta-references besides words, to satisfy WP:PRECISION.
As for the second part: the more general template is:
{{about|what it IS about|some other usage|where to find that other usage}}
–
.Raven
.talk
19:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
(word)
(or 'term', or 'expression', depending on the article) could be very helpful in articles about words. The vast majority of our 7M articles are about concepts not words, and so it's not surprising that the very few exceptions cause confusion among editors, and this would be a helpful modification to the
WP:Article title policy that will help prevent that. The article
LGBT, for example, is entirely about the word, its history, evolution, variants, and so on; despite the hatnote and italic title, there have still been numerous good-faith attempts to alter it to discuss "LGBT" as a concept. These edits are essentially due to a misunderstanding of the
use–mention distinction on the part of these good-faith editors, but that is hardly surprising, given the subtlety of the topic. Following Raven's suggestion at the
Cisgender article would result in a title of "Cisgender (word)", which would likely avoid most of the confusion. And if and when it was time to change the focus of the article from word to concept, the title would help clarify the situation, and require a title change, as well it should. I support this proposal. I think that the article title policy should be modified to add wording about this.
Mathglot (
talk)
21:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)One of the biggest misunderstandings in Wikipedia is the false dichotomy that regarding this there are only two things:
While the title of the page and section sort of hide it, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject explains (with examples) that many topics exist in the "gray area" in between. Please read...It's just two short paragraphs and makes my main point here. It gives several examples where the word somewhat "creates" the topic by grouping things that don't otherwise have a common name. And I think that this is a very important area to gain recognition and handle. One way or the other, I think that the end result is that these articles need to recognize that they are covering the term and usually not the place to cover that which is created/grouped/renamed by the term. North8000 ( talk) 20:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
... these articles need to recognize that they are covering the term and usually not the place to cover that which is created/grouped/renamed by the term."Yes, thank you! I would amend this only to add "editors of" in front of that, to clarify who can/should recognize that.And my proposal was meant to help editors (and readers) recognize that. – .Raven .talk 21:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that one thing that fuels the problem is the widely accepted mantra that Wikipedia articles can't be about words. While that is a useful mantra most of time (because we aren't a dictionary) it obscures the fact that there are times when we need to recognize that the article should be (only) about the term. Most of the time we fail at that, partially because the title taken literally is about a real world topic, albeit inherently though a POV lens and usually a grouping created by the lens of the term. And of course, sometime politics affects whether or not we succeed. An article which does a really good job at this is Gay agenda . Although the topic is prima facie about gay related initiatives, the article recognizes that it needs to be about the term and is not the place to cover gay related initiatives, and successfully limits itself to coverage of the term.
So I think that the proposal here is a step in the right direction. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 01:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This is also covered at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject (shortcut: WP:WORDISSUBJECT) which in my view probably should reside on this page, with a summary there. Mathglot ( talk) 04:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn this discussion into a proposal, it would be to add:
A typical article is on a topic which exists independently of the title and the where title is merely used to identify it. At the other extreme are topics which clearly need to be only about a term. For example, an article about a racial slur is clearly not the place to cover the race which is the target of the slur and covering that race in that article would tend to promote legitimacy of the slur. The "gray area" in between is when it appears to be about a topic, but where the topic is created by the term and does not exist as a separate and distinct topic without the term. Usually this creation is done by grouping, renaming and applying a certain "lens" to topics that are covered elsewhere. Those articles should be treated in the same way; the coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The article is NOT the place to cover the topic which is the object of the term. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda, Lake Michigan–Huron are examples. In many cases, it's best to clarify this by including "(term)" or "(word)" or "(concept)" in the title.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
BTW the linked articles show various degrees of success and failure at following this concept. North8000 ( talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't realize that use of "(word)" as a parenthetical disambiguator is already in practice, and it's not the only one; there is also "(term)", "(slang)", various parts of speech such as "(adjective)", "(pronoun)" and "(interjection)", and various other disambiguators:
Articles about a word which use a parenthetical disambiguator
|
---|
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of articles that are about a word, and which have a parenthetical disambiguator in the title
Many articles about a word also have another page with the same title, minus the parenthetical disambiguator, which is an article about a concept:
Sometimes the shorter title is a disambig page:
|
On the other hand, that usage is by no means universal. Here are some articles about a word, that do not use a parenthetical disambiguator:
Articles about a word which do NOT use a parenthetical disambiguator
|
---|
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of articles that are about a word, and which do not use a parenthetical disambiguator
|
And there are any number of other articles which say they are about a word, but then reading the article, it's hard to say if they are or they aren't; these articles might need some work to clarify what the actual topic is, and an {{ unfocused}} maintenance template to be added until they are: Dark Ages (historiography), Sede vacante, Straight-acting, and many others. (I waive TPO for the purpose of adding more examples to the lists above; if you have good examples to add, feel free to do so.)
The current usage appears to be somewhat arbitrary, and seems to indicate that some kind of update to the policy to provide guidance on how to handle such articles should be made; see the subsection above. Mathglot ( talk) 05:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this is an important and worthwhile effort. There's no one perfect place to do it, but doing it here is as good as anywhere and helpful even if covered elsewhere. North8000 ( talk) 20:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
As sometimes two different places in completely different areas can have the same name, I would use parentheses, right? However, I am unsure if I am supposed to put the city, subdivision, or country inside of it, if there is a specific preference. (e.g. Should I use Cool House (North Carolina) and Cool House (California) or Cool House (Asheville) and Cool House (Fresno)?) DarkNight0917 ( talk) 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
For initialisms/acronyms such as NASA and DNA. I tried to reflect current usage, but if this is not what we want to advise, please revert. Perhaps wording of when we decide the acronym/initialism should be a dab page, but that should presumably be covered by our dab policy. — kwami ( talk) 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
What would be the preferred title for the album 101²? The cover art is ambiguous and appears to read "Highway 101²", but the album label and spine both call it just "101²". However, I've also seen it listed as: "Highway 101 2" (Virgin Encyclopedia of Country Music, Grammy database), "101 2" (Billboard), "Highway 101, Vol. 2" (Allmusic), "Highway 101-2" (various news articles around the album's release date), "Highway 101²" (Discogs), and just "2" (Arizona Daily Star review). What would be the preferred method of rendering the album's title in this case? Should it be deferred to the album's rendering of "101²", or is there some other nomenclature quirk I'm missing here? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Some input at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? would be appreciated. Thanks! Surtsicna ( talk) 07:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash – This is principally about our own article titles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency on Wikipedia, I think there should be a ruling on which method to use:
Both forms are probably correct and/or permissible, but they're applied arbitrarily to their respective article titles. Woko Sapien ( talk) 15:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I've posted this on the WikiProject Film page, but it didn't generate much interest, so I thought I would ask here as well: I've recently noticed that User:Artemis Andromeda has been moving/translating numerous foreign-language television and film titles to English. Many of these are obscure, so it's not clear to me in what language they are more commonly known to English readers. The editor in question has been somewhat reticent on the subject, as can be seen here: Talk:07 Come In#Name change, so I thought I would try and find out whether these types of moves are approved/recommended, or if a stop should be put to the activity. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 03:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Article titles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Here's part of DIFFCAPS:
Plural forms may in certain instances also be used
Please change it to:
In certain instances, plural forms may also be used
This has an identical meaning, but by moving "in certain instances" earlier in the sentence, "may also be used" reads more easily than if it's split. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
How did that get into WP:AT? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
May I draw your attention to the issue raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals) § Can we clarify when plurals are appropriate? and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals) § Interpretation of the exception for articles on groups of entities? The issue was raised two years ago but received no reaction. Apparently no one is monitoring that page. -- Lambiam 07:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The sale of naming rights for venues is creating a revolving door of renames. For some locations, this has already become a trainwreck, and will only become worse for all participating locations. Most venues where naming rights have changed several times have clear specific common names that people use. I suggest an update to the policy that emphasizes these common use and ongoing names rather than have Wikipedia chase venue renames to provide companies advertising. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 06:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Recentism is in fact the guiding principle here? No, Recentism is NOT a guiding principle. The principle is to refer to quality sources. NAMECHANGES means that recent sources might be better sources, because, obviously, pre-namechange sources won’t know about the namechange.
Another way to say it is that a using a moniker that keep changing is not a good way to identify a topic for a Wikipedia article. North8000 ( talk) 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a new article at Mariborski radio študent (topic in Slovenia), and I'm unsure of how to handle this proper name title. Slovenian, like some other Central European languages, seems to have sentence-case proper names. UE doesn't apply here as this isn't a topic covered in English. What should be done? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I saw one of these mentioned at an AFD (not nominated itself), and noticed there were a few others that look like they're trying to be subpages: [1]. This doesn't seem like a proper titling scheme, and I have no idea what should be done, so I figured I'd just post here in case someone wants to take a look. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 18:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
G'day, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#Proposed article titling guidance for orders of battle that may be of interest. Please have a read and add your views, and hopefully a consensus can be achieved. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
A proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation may be of interest to watchers of this page and additional input is welcome to generate consensus. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles regarding the word "marque" and a proposal to replace it with "car brand" may be of interest to watchers of this page and additional input is welcome to generate consensus. Thank you. Andra Febrian ( talk) 07:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated. This covers more than the thread name implies, including a general need to update that guideline, which hasn't had substantive changes since 2009. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Time and time again, RM discussions have rejected DIFFCAPS arguments; most recently this Talk:Canada_Goose_(clothing)#Requested_move_10_December_2023 Canada Goose/Canada goose discussion which appears to be going nowhere. I believe it's quite clear that the policy, as it is written today, is not being followed. If the policy does not have the support of the Wikipedia community, then it needs to be rewritten. There's also been some discussion in the past regarding this, see here. How can we improve this? 162 etc. ( talk) 08:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for; the overwhelmingly more common search target for the string " Canada Goose" is the bird, because of the over-capitalization habit common to most (though not all) ornithoscopic and ornithological publications.
small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics; "usually" does not mean "always", and just a single word being capitalized is generally the weakest kind of case in which to try to invoke WP:SMALLDETAILS, because capitalization norms in English barely exist in informal writing, with literally millions of people convinced (by exposure to advertising and bureaucratese) that things should be capitalized just to "signify" them and somehow important or noteworth, or to otherwise get attention.
However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered, and the very first example is use of parenthetical disambiguation, exactly like Canada Goose (clothing).
And a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling, which is precisely the case with the Goose-related RM.In short, it is important to actually read policies and guidelines closely and to think about their meaning and application, before invoking them much less proposing to change them. Pretty much every word of that policy section is directly against your interpretation of the situation, and the policy material is not out of step with actual community best practices (at least not in this regard).The previous discussion you linked to and this Goose case do not relate in any way; the 2020 thread was about whether we should remove the entire section (or just the point about capitalization, and I've leaned in favor of that myself) on the basis that such small differences may be unreliable indicators of what a reader is actually looking for, especially as texting and instant messaging erode punctuation, capitalization, and other norms in everyday use for a substantial number of readers. I.e., the gist of that thread boils down to a proposal to require more disambiguation. So, if that old discussion had proceeded in the way you seem to wish it had gone, then not only would the Goose case here have turned into exactly the same WP:SNOWBALL on the basis of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, that snowball would have formed faster and harder because of an elevated level of parenthetic disambiguation being enforced. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Currently, WP:NAMECHANGES states that we analyse whether sources routinely uses the new name, but what if both the new and old are used by a source. As a new name many sources include the previous name for their audience. Like "K'gari ( Fraser Island)" here. If a source puts the new name first in primacy, is it classed as one supporting "K'gari", or is the inclusion of Fraser Island still indicate the old name is still needed as the more common one still? (therefore the source not used for supporting "K'gari")
So if a source uses both names, does the order of such be used as support for one or if they still use the old name, even secondarily, that it isn't to be considered until they use the new name alone. Basically is "routinely" to be interpreted as "primarily" or "solely". Unless there is some other criteria. Dank Jae 16:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page. In short, the material needs to move to a naming-conventions guideline, but which page? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (lists)#Fixing disambiguation confusion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
How strict are we being about characters that aren't normally used in English these days?
For example, should Mānuka honey (the Māori word is pronounced something like a thoroughly anglicized Monica; it doesn't represent the long a sound that most Americans will expect) use the macron, or should the page title by Manuka honey without it? Should Gylfi Þorsteinsson Gíslason use the Icelandic Thorn (letter) or the English transliteration or be at Gylfi Thorsteinsson Gíslason (which I think is the standard transliteration)? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
In the article tolon'omby, I have an issue: the current title is said to be the name with broader geographical usage in Madagascar, but the name savika, which is said to be local to the region of Madagascar where this article's topic originates and is most practiced, is the name more commonly used in literature. The French and Malagasy Wikipedias use Savika as their article titles. Neither name is uncommon in literature. Zanahary ( talk) 01:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Another editor recently italicized the title of the article Cult. I disagree. Debating by edit summaries, and by discussion ( Talk:Cult § Italics or not italics for title) has gone nowhere. I think the other editor is reading WP:ITALICTITLE and MOS:WAW too literally because the Cult article starts out, "Cult is a term". However, the article covers far more than just defining a word (unlike how Orange (word) does). Though the article also discusses "cult" as a word, it mainly discusses far broader concepts (my opinion from browsing the article). Also comparing to the previously-discussed-here article Gay which is quite comprehensive though still focused on discussing the word as a word—the article Cult is not focused in like manner.
I'm interested in input by those who frequent this policy article and have more experience in how WP:ITALICTITLE has been applied in the past. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Use italics
when italics would be necessary in running text;forexample,taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.
I checked the 3 discussions as mentioned in the footnote "h" [2], and no one was arguing for or against "words as words". They debated ship names, book titles, and foreign words. Examples such as "orange", "gay" and "cult" were not even on anyone's radar. The result of the discussions was to make this edit to WP:ITALICTITLE which is substantially similar to what we see today, but without the wikilink to MOS:ITALIC. Even in the flurry of microedits in the week that followed, a link to MOS:ITALIC was not part of the paragraph at the time (September 2010).
However, 4 months later (December 2010), an editor made an edit which inserted the wikilink to what is now known as MOS:ITALIC but no one seems to have noticed it at the time. A month later, that editor was indef blocked for disruption (nonresponsive, and too many edits too fast, such as using an indiscriminate bot). They reverted his last 300 edits [3] which wasn't enough to catch this one. (That editor was averaging over 300 edits per day!)
I can conclude, therefore, that "words as words" was never intended to be included in the meaning of ITALICTITLE through consensus process. Possibly the link to MOS:ITALIC also wasn't intended, and certainly there was no active consensus to make the edit.
I recommend the wikilink be removed. It might well reduce the number of "asks" on this talk page, and might reduce some of the debating on individual pages. At any rate, removing the wikilink would be closer to the original consensus results. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I strongly feel that no change is needed here or to MOSITALIC. The change is needed in any article that begins "Foo is a term for..." Articles should almost never start that way. "A cult is a..." That's how you start that article. "Orange is a colour..." etc. Italicising words as words is very useful and taking that out of the MOS would be highly detrimental to so many articles. Primergrey ( talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ahomisation#Neologism as title. Thank you. Mathglot ( talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw that the Fellini film 8½ has "½", which seems to be a special character, and the title should be 8 1/2. Am I wrong? I was surprised to see that there has never been a discussion to move it. I consider myself pretty keyboard-savvy but don't know of a way to make ½ when browsing the Internet. EDIT: Same concern with 9½ Weeks. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I have been warned that this topic will not be well received. I have worked for decades in Quality Management. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopaedia. Is a title and you have therefore capitalised it. Why do these same rules not flow through the site? All page titles should be capitalised, no? My example was Chinese Water Torture. This should be capitalised as the page title, but continually when in use as it describes a specific person, place, organisation, or thing? I thought that this describes the rules well? https://writer.com/blog/capitalization-rules/ I haven't gone to edit anything as I await advice or concuss from the administrators. This is my first time here so hope I have done this correctly? Thanks. 2A0A:EF40:833:2101:5446:6A9:57E3:A13 ( talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
I've been harboring a rather radical idea for a while, which would require a minor technical change and potentially a minor policy change, the bottom line being:
This technical change would allow that the articles located at
Mercury (planet) and
Mercury (element) both have the same title displayed at the top of the page, Mercury. Their unique (disambiguated) page names would appear only in page URL, possibly in the search box, and maybe somewhere in a subtitle for convenience of editors.
This would allow hiding our artificial disambiguators from the readers, particularly ugly ones such as
John Smith (English footballer, born June 1983) or
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) -- both would be titled by their COMMONNAMEs "John Smith" and "Sarah Brown", and disambiguation handled mainly by
WP:short descriptions (from the reader's perspective). I foresee that such a change could alleviate the persistent flood of primary topic challenges and requested page moves. Note that we would not want (or allow) gibberish page names such as Q78923714.
Technical details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure whether the current MediaWiki supports the proposed setup, or if some additional coding would be necessary. Judging on Wikidata, the capability is already there. Check out mw:Extension:Display Title (I have not deep-dived there). Additional accompanying technical changes should include:
Eventual (but not immediate) policy changes, subject to further consensus, may be:
|
Before I jump the gun and go tothe Village pump, I'd like to test the waters here and hear the concerns and proposals first. No such user ( talk) 09:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Please see the RFC which is currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
We have articles about two institutions titled "Newman University." One is Newman University, Birmingham and the other is Newman University, Wichita. There is also a disambiguation page at Newman University. Should the titles of those two article be changed to place the location in parentheses? I ask only because I'm not terribly familiar with this particular policy. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 00:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Article titles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I know there are lots of hatnotes, but please add another one:
{{This|the policy governing article titles|technical information about article titles|Wikipedia:Page name}}
I was surprised to find that this was a policy; I figured a page called "Article titles" would provide technical information about titles, and it took a while to find the page that did provide that information. 175.39.61.121 ( talk) 03:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there much in the info page that is not already in the policy, or that a "see also" wouldn't suffice?— Bagumba ( talk) 10:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic
intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same titleapplies in this situation, no? The primary reason the IP wanted this edit request added is because they believed Wikipedia:Article titles would give technical information on page names and didn't, and I can definitely see how someone would come to that conclusion. Nor would I say the 2 pages are
simply related, as one is about how to name an article procedurally and another is about how the names of pages work on Wikipedia at a more technical level. — Sirdog ( talk) 23:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topicWikipedia:Article titles#Special characters delves into some technical aspects already that directly affect title naming.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
(I don't know where the best place to post this is, but WP:NAMECHANGES redirects here, so I figured I might post it here.)
When is the exact time a company's article (and its related pages) should be moved to reflect its new name? Oftentimes, companies only announce the date on which they are set to adopt a new name, but not the time that the change is set to take place. So, should it be:
I ask this because Warner Bros. Discovery recently announced the rebranding of DC Films to DC Studios, which is set to take effect on November 1, but DC Films (the company) and Warner Bros. Entertainment (its parent) is headquartered in Hollywood while WBD (the parent's parent) is headquartered in NYC. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
no source, no name changeis correct, if a previous source said "Company XYZ will rebrand as Company ABC next Monday" then we do have a source that indicates Company XYZ will rebrand as Company ABC on Monday. A source that comes out on Monday saying "Company XYZ has rebranded as Company ABC" isn't needed, and in some cases such a report may not happen, so it may take days until we actually get a reliable source that uses the new name. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".Is there any language that you need clarified? Cullen328 ( talk) 04:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
the guideline makes no mention about page moves, I'm going to assume that moving a page to its new name on the date it is set to do so is permissibleis evidence of a deep misunderstanding. A page move, after all, is the only way to change the title of an existing article. So, it is unnecessary to mention page moves in such a guideline, just as it is unnecessary to mention hammers every time you talk about nails. We move pages about renamed topics to a new name only after the preponderance of reliable sources entirely independent of the topic start using the new name. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I am posting here instead of the talk page of the corresponding page since this is more actively watched. In the section where it talks about using the birth date of the person when there isn't a good qualifier to use. For example: Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914). In my experience, there seems to be very few articles that use these qualifier. Why not Charles Hawtrey (1858-1923) or Charles Hawtrey (1914-1988)? On articles about royalty, I see a lot of articles that the form John Smith (1842-1903). Example: Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817). I am hoping to get some input regarding how these titles should be used and hopefully develop better conventions on what to do with these titles. Interstellarity ( talk) 21:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an existing video game at Hades 2 and a recently announced one that is Hades II (currently a redirect). Hatnotes will obviously be used to point back and forth on these, but is the different between "2" and "II" sufficient to distinguish titles or should these be disambiguated further (which for video games will be by year)? Masem ( t) 21:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I finally put together some text regarding this issue at Draft:Base names should not redirect to disambiguated pages, since the topic seems to keep coming up every once in a while at WP:RFD or WP:RM, and citing WP:QUALIFIER doesn't seem to satisfactorily get the point across. Open to any suggestions before I move to project space. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 03:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently there is significant disagreement about how common is "also commonly called" and not "obscure" as intended by WP:NATURAL:
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names.
See: Talk:Electric_battery#Requested_move_25_December_2022_--_Post-close_discussion. -- В²C ☎ 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
There are articles at both Delta Phi Epsilon (social) and Delta Phi Epsilon (professional). There are also a large number of Greek Letter Organizations with List of XXX Chapters articles or redirects. For an article or redirect for a chapter list for Delta Phi Epsilon (social) is List of Delta Phi Epsilon (social) chapters acceptable, or should it be List of Delta Phi Epsilon chapters (social). The first seems more parallel with the article, but the second seems more parallel with the dab term being last. Naraht ( talk) 14:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Should footwear article titles (shoes and socks) be singular or plural? Please weigh in at move requests here and here if you care. — AjaxSmack 05:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
In a current renaming discussion at Talk:East Timor (target: Timor-Leste), User:Srnec opined "Sources from before 2020 (or 2000, or 1975) aren't going to disappear. They should still get a say, albeit of ever decreasing weighting." Has consideration been given here in the past of the extent to which recency comes to play in assessing the weight of sources considered in a WP:COMMONNAME determination?
Srnec offered one view, and it makes sense insofar as people come across names in old sources as well as new ones; if English speakers read about a place more often in texts from the 1940s than they do in contemporary media, then isn't what they call the place likely to be influenced by the other sources? Another view would be that only sources within the past X months should be considered, to answer the question: what are reliable sources now calling this place (without regard to whether these are the only sources that potential visitors to Wikipedia in search of further information about this place are reading).
A summary of the dichotomy here: are we more concerned with what, out in the wild, is currently being written or what's currently being read? And, certainly, there may be perspectives on this beyond those two.
If there's a strong enough feeling one way or another, should it be capture in the guideline?
Your thoughts? Largoplazo ( talk) 01:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Washington (state) is obviously disambiguated from all the other people and places with this name at Washington. But there are dozens of articles related to the state that I don't believe actually need this parenthetical disambiguation, for example List of lighthouses in Washington (state) doesn't need a disambiguation from another other List of lighthouses in Washington. The latter is now a redirect after User:Thrakkx moved it and 21 other articles to include (state). In several cases they also converted the original name to a dab page like List of high schools in Washington, but I don't think this is necessary either as "Washington, D.C." already has a different name (in some cases the title has "District of Columbia"). A hatnote would also work. Should there really be a parenthetical for all pages related to a main topic that has one or can that be just those that need it? Reywas92 Talk 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
already [have] a different name, but in the opening sentence of its article, we state that it is also known as just "Washington". Thrakkx ( talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if this is addressed elsewhere but I didn't find it--is there a policy on how allegations of titles are managed? It makes for poor sorting alphabetically when so many disparate articles regarding allegations are not titled with the subject first.
Similar issues with "interpretations of", "analysis of" etc. SmolBrane ( talk) 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I came to this page again from a discussion at Talk:May 1968 events in France. This edit by me is not related to any of the arguments from that discussion, however. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a RfC regarding article titles for boxing matches at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles. – 2. O. Boxing 11:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOSJAPAN § Why doesn't Wikipedia respect Japan?. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
In Category:Censuses by country, there are a number of page titles used. For example:
There should be a standard form, whether [Year country/demonym census] or [Year census of country]. There should possibly also be a standard to use lower-case. The former is more succinct, and similar to that used for Wikipedia:Articles on elections. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 06:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:TSC states that underscores cannot be used, but Category:Articles with underscores in the title seems to indicate otherwise. Should we reword this guidance, clarifying that the only limitation is that Wikipedia equates it with a space, thus "Hello_World" is the same title as "Hello World"? Hoof Hearted ( talk) 12:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This info could be mentioned in WP:CONCISE section.
Hundreds of people a day apparently look up "incarceration rates" or similar in Google search. A clear and shorter Wikipedia title effected a 4-fold 2-fold immediate increase in page views when reverting back to a shorter title:
See:
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
It still looks like a big jump in views. A 2-fold increase. That may not matter to you. Maybe you edit Wikipedia for the pure joy of wikitext, and not because it is an encyclopedia reaching vast numbers of people with easy to access, understandable info.
But I think others, many others, will disagree with you. And so a few lines in WP:CONCISE will help Wikipedia reach more clueless Trump and QAnon supporters (for example) who will more easily find accurate info. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I noticed on your talk page this quote: "It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia."
I would think the page title then is the most important factor in many cases in getting those readers here.
I don't know if I have the energy for a long WP:VPP discussion. I didn't think my request was such a big deal. It's obvious to me, but I deal with list pages with tables a lot. I use Google a lot to find them. I forgot to link to those thousands of "by country" pages. See:
I should clarify that the vast majority of page views on big sites come from Google/Bing/etc.. That's one reason they are big sites. Smaller sites may not necessarily be getting as large a percentage of views from commercial search engines. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) § Changing of naming conventions. :3 F4U ( they /it) 01:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm planning an article (not yet even ready for a sandbox draft) about an incident involving an airplane flight in New York City on September 11th, 2018. The flight in question was from New Delhi, India, and scheduled to land at JFK, ultimately being lucky enough to be able to make a safe landing in Newark (a suburb of New York City across the New Jersey border). The flight involved is Air India Flight 101; unfortunately, this airline and number match a more notable aircrash in 1966. What should the title of the new article be? Animal lover |666| 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
We have a missing article list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion based on topic names from the Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion, with odd formulations such as Africa, North: History of Dress; Ancient World: History of Dress. It seems like these Missing encyclopedic articles contains many improper page names. I think perhaps the Missing encyclopedic articles needs pruning and purging of bad page names? These names are showing up at WP:AFC/R for redirect creation -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 19:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Since the state changed its official name at some point, and thus the name referred to in the example is historical, consider replacing the example with one that doesn't need a potentially confusing clarification. Ideas: Llanfairpwllgwyngyll rather than its longer variants, many examples of Foo rather than Republic/Kingdom of Foo, Turing Award rather than ACM A. M. Turing Award. 73.223.72.200 ( talk) 22:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
A few more editors with a good understanding of WP title decision-making weighing in here would be good for the community: Talk:Mike_McCartney_(footballer)#Requested_move_6_May_2023. Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 06:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
But how? Help, please? TCFLightyears93 ( group chat / contributions) 18:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Owen Brewster about his common name. Please comment.-- User:Namiba 17:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that in some cases, what might be considered a WP:COMMONNAME is actually more slang or casual usage. Right now, I am thinking of how to reply to a name change proposal. I believe we should not necessarily use slang names, unless they are especially common. Gah4 ( talk) 21:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Article titles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Non-neutral but common names" section, please change "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to" to "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to", i.e. do not italicise "what readers" in the second half when it's not italicised in the first half. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:D999:8C1F:CA47:4F8B ( talk) 10:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
For a long time with regard to the name of sports stadiums with sponsored names, it has generally been an unwritten rule on sports stadium articles (particularly in UK football and rugby related ones) that these names are not used for the title unless the stadium has never had a non-sponsored name to avoid Wikipedia being seen to endorse commercial entities. Henceforth, I wish to formalise this by proposing that a section be added to the Article Titles policy stating:
For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "
Multiple local names" and "
Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions can
benefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow.
(emphasis added by me) The link in the second sentence points to WP:RFC. This seems like a very clear case where the link should point to WP:RM, as that's where article title disputes are handled at first. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:CONCISE. See RFC here:
Someone recently added "Estimated" to that article title. I find that many list/table articles explain in the article and/or article references about the level of estimation involved, and how the data was acquired.
Does it really need to be in the article title too? The current article there, and its references, already explains that they are estimates. The main reference there (at the reference site) explains their sourcing. Many data points in list articles are based on surveys, for example. Editors can add as much detail as they want in an article about the reference methodology. We need to keep article titles shorter if we want them to be understood in the truncated titles that major search engines present to readers. See my previous talk section here. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Whether it is many or most list articles that are estimated is not my point." yet the title of this section you created suggests that that is the argument. The majority of 'list' articles are not lists of estimates; again, this is trivially verifiable. Where an article's content is based on surveys and proxies, then it's appropriate - it's misleading to title an article as an emphatic when it's not. Filling in more data in a table doesn't change that the values are still estimates. In the case of firearm ownership, the estimates range from 'maybe close' to 'wildy disparate'. This inquiry should be retitled, since it's misleading, it should instead be something along the lines of "Should "estimated" be added to articles where it's not obvious to the general reader that the data isn't strict?" cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Most? Absolutely not. Most list articles are not even numerical, where the word "estimated" wouldn't be appropriate at all. In this one article title? Possibly. Discuss it on the article talk page, and reach a consensus. -- Jayron 32 14:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Generally, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, sometimes it does have articles about words (as distinct from the concepts they represent). Currently there's a discussion on Talk:Cisgender about the problem that – despite the short description "Gender identity descriptor" – some editors are editing the lead to discuss the concept, while the rest of the article is about the word as such. @ Mathglot: tells me I should bring my own suggestion here, because it may have wider applicability:
The first part seems to me consistent with other titles that add "(book)" or "(film)" where, absent those additions, the title might be taken as referring to a person, place, or event. In this case, I am suggesting it even though there is no other article to disambiguate it from, just to reduce misunderstanding of the referent. Broadly, the same might apply to any other meta-references besides words, to satisfy WP:PRECISION.
As for the second part: the more general template is:
{{about|what it IS about|some other usage|where to find that other usage}}
–
.Raven
.talk
19:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
(word)
(or 'term', or 'expression', depending on the article) could be very helpful in articles about words. The vast majority of our 7M articles are about concepts not words, and so it's not surprising that the very few exceptions cause confusion among editors, and this would be a helpful modification to the
WP:Article title policy that will help prevent that. The article
LGBT, for example, is entirely about the word, its history, evolution, variants, and so on; despite the hatnote and italic title, there have still been numerous good-faith attempts to alter it to discuss "LGBT" as a concept. These edits are essentially due to a misunderstanding of the
use–mention distinction on the part of these good-faith editors, but that is hardly surprising, given the subtlety of the topic. Following Raven's suggestion at the
Cisgender article would result in a title of "Cisgender (word)", which would likely avoid most of the confusion. And if and when it was time to change the focus of the article from word to concept, the title would help clarify the situation, and require a title change, as well it should. I support this proposal. I think that the article title policy should be modified to add wording about this.
Mathglot (
talk)
21:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)One of the biggest misunderstandings in Wikipedia is the false dichotomy that regarding this there are only two things:
While the title of the page and section sort of hide it, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject explains (with examples) that many topics exist in the "gray area" in between. Please read...It's just two short paragraphs and makes my main point here. It gives several examples where the word somewhat "creates" the topic by grouping things that don't otherwise have a common name. And I think that this is a very important area to gain recognition and handle. One way or the other, I think that the end result is that these articles need to recognize that they are covering the term and usually not the place to cover that which is created/grouped/renamed by the term. North8000 ( talk) 20:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
... these articles need to recognize that they are covering the term and usually not the place to cover that which is created/grouped/renamed by the term."Yes, thank you! I would amend this only to add "editors of" in front of that, to clarify who can/should recognize that.And my proposal was meant to help editors (and readers) recognize that. – .Raven .talk 21:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that one thing that fuels the problem is the widely accepted mantra that Wikipedia articles can't be about words. While that is a useful mantra most of time (because we aren't a dictionary) it obscures the fact that there are times when we need to recognize that the article should be (only) about the term. Most of the time we fail at that, partially because the title taken literally is about a real world topic, albeit inherently though a POV lens and usually a grouping created by the lens of the term. And of course, sometime politics affects whether or not we succeed. An article which does a really good job at this is Gay agenda . Although the topic is prima facie about gay related initiatives, the article recognizes that it needs to be about the term and is not the place to cover gay related initiatives, and successfully limits itself to coverage of the term.
So I think that the proposal here is a step in the right direction. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 01:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This is also covered at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject (shortcut: WP:WORDISSUBJECT) which in my view probably should reside on this page, with a summary there. Mathglot ( talk) 04:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn this discussion into a proposal, it would be to add:
A typical article is on a topic which exists independently of the title and the where title is merely used to identify it. At the other extreme are topics which clearly need to be only about a term. For example, an article about a racial slur is clearly not the place to cover the race which is the target of the slur and covering that race in that article would tend to promote legitimacy of the slur. The "gray area" in between is when it appears to be about a topic, but where the topic is created by the term and does not exist as a separate and distinct topic without the term. Usually this creation is done by grouping, renaming and applying a certain "lens" to topics that are covered elsewhere. Those articles should be treated in the same way; the coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The article is NOT the place to cover the topic which is the object of the term. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda, Lake Michigan–Huron are examples. In many cases, it's best to clarify this by including "(term)" or "(word)" or "(concept)" in the title.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
BTW the linked articles show various degrees of success and failure at following this concept. North8000 ( talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't realize that use of "(word)" as a parenthetical disambiguator is already in practice, and it's not the only one; there is also "(term)", "(slang)", various parts of speech such as "(adjective)", "(pronoun)" and "(interjection)", and various other disambiguators:
Articles about a word which use a parenthetical disambiguator
|
---|
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of articles that are about a word, and which have a parenthetical disambiguator in the title
Many articles about a word also have another page with the same title, minus the parenthetical disambiguator, which is an article about a concept:
Sometimes the shorter title is a disambig page:
|
On the other hand, that usage is by no means universal. Here are some articles about a word, that do not use a parenthetical disambiguator:
Articles about a word which do NOT use a parenthetical disambiguator
|
---|
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of articles that are about a word, and which do not use a parenthetical disambiguator
|
And there are any number of other articles which say they are about a word, but then reading the article, it's hard to say if they are or they aren't; these articles might need some work to clarify what the actual topic is, and an {{ unfocused}} maintenance template to be added until they are: Dark Ages (historiography), Sede vacante, Straight-acting, and many others. (I waive TPO for the purpose of adding more examples to the lists above; if you have good examples to add, feel free to do so.)
The current usage appears to be somewhat arbitrary, and seems to indicate that some kind of update to the policy to provide guidance on how to handle such articles should be made; see the subsection above. Mathglot ( talk) 05:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this is an important and worthwhile effort. There's no one perfect place to do it, but doing it here is as good as anywhere and helpful even if covered elsewhere. North8000 ( talk) 20:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
As sometimes two different places in completely different areas can have the same name, I would use parentheses, right? However, I am unsure if I am supposed to put the city, subdivision, or country inside of it, if there is a specific preference. (e.g. Should I use Cool House (North Carolina) and Cool House (California) or Cool House (Asheville) and Cool House (Fresno)?) DarkNight0917 ( talk) 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
For initialisms/acronyms such as NASA and DNA. I tried to reflect current usage, but if this is not what we want to advise, please revert. Perhaps wording of when we decide the acronym/initialism should be a dab page, but that should presumably be covered by our dab policy. — kwami ( talk) 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
What would be the preferred title for the album 101²? The cover art is ambiguous and appears to read "Highway 101²", but the album label and spine both call it just "101²". However, I've also seen it listed as: "Highway 101 2" (Virgin Encyclopedia of Country Music, Grammy database), "101 2" (Billboard), "Highway 101, Vol. 2" (Allmusic), "Highway 101-2" (various news articles around the album's release date), "Highway 101²" (Discogs), and just "2" (Arizona Daily Star review). What would be the preferred method of rendering the album's title in this case? Should it be deferred to the album's rendering of "101²", or is there some other nomenclature quirk I'm missing here? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Some input at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? would be appreciated. Thanks! Surtsicna ( talk) 07:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash – This is principally about our own article titles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency on Wikipedia, I think there should be a ruling on which method to use:
Both forms are probably correct and/or permissible, but they're applied arbitrarily to their respective article titles. Woko Sapien ( talk) 15:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I've posted this on the WikiProject Film page, but it didn't generate much interest, so I thought I would ask here as well: I've recently noticed that User:Artemis Andromeda has been moving/translating numerous foreign-language television and film titles to English. Many of these are obscure, so it's not clear to me in what language they are more commonly known to English readers. The editor in question has been somewhat reticent on the subject, as can be seen here: Talk:07 Come In#Name change, so I thought I would try and find out whether these types of moves are approved/recommended, or if a stop should be put to the activity. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 03:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Article titles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Here's part of DIFFCAPS:
Plural forms may in certain instances also be used
Please change it to:
In certain instances, plural forms may also be used
This has an identical meaning, but by moving "in certain instances" earlier in the sentence, "may also be used" reads more easily than if it's split. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
How did that get into WP:AT? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
May I draw your attention to the issue raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals) § Can we clarify when plurals are appropriate? and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals) § Interpretation of the exception for articles on groups of entities? The issue was raised two years ago but received no reaction. Apparently no one is monitoring that page. -- Lambiam 07:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The sale of naming rights for venues is creating a revolving door of renames. For some locations, this has already become a trainwreck, and will only become worse for all participating locations. Most venues where naming rights have changed several times have clear specific common names that people use. I suggest an update to the policy that emphasizes these common use and ongoing names rather than have Wikipedia chase venue renames to provide companies advertising. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 06:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Recentism is in fact the guiding principle here? No, Recentism is NOT a guiding principle. The principle is to refer to quality sources. NAMECHANGES means that recent sources might be better sources, because, obviously, pre-namechange sources won’t know about the namechange.
Another way to say it is that a using a moniker that keep changing is not a good way to identify a topic for a Wikipedia article. North8000 ( talk) 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a new article at Mariborski radio študent (topic in Slovenia), and I'm unsure of how to handle this proper name title. Slovenian, like some other Central European languages, seems to have sentence-case proper names. UE doesn't apply here as this isn't a topic covered in English. What should be done? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I saw one of these mentioned at an AFD (not nominated itself), and noticed there were a few others that look like they're trying to be subpages: [1]. This doesn't seem like a proper titling scheme, and I have no idea what should be done, so I figured I'd just post here in case someone wants to take a look. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 18:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
G'day, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#Proposed article titling guidance for orders of battle that may be of interest. Please have a read and add your views, and hopefully a consensus can be achieved. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
A proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation may be of interest to watchers of this page and additional input is welcome to generate consensus. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles regarding the word "marque" and a proposal to replace it with "car brand" may be of interest to watchers of this page and additional input is welcome to generate consensus. Thank you. Andra Febrian ( talk) 07:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated. This covers more than the thread name implies, including a general need to update that guideline, which hasn't had substantive changes since 2009. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Time and time again, RM discussions have rejected DIFFCAPS arguments; most recently this Talk:Canada_Goose_(clothing)#Requested_move_10_December_2023 Canada Goose/Canada goose discussion which appears to be going nowhere. I believe it's quite clear that the policy, as it is written today, is not being followed. If the policy does not have the support of the Wikipedia community, then it needs to be rewritten. There's also been some discussion in the past regarding this, see here. How can we improve this? 162 etc. ( talk) 08:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for; the overwhelmingly more common search target for the string " Canada Goose" is the bird, because of the over-capitalization habit common to most (though not all) ornithoscopic and ornithological publications.
small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics; "usually" does not mean "always", and just a single word being capitalized is generally the weakest kind of case in which to try to invoke WP:SMALLDETAILS, because capitalization norms in English barely exist in informal writing, with literally millions of people convinced (by exposure to advertising and bureaucratese) that things should be capitalized just to "signify" them and somehow important or noteworth, or to otherwise get attention.
However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered, and the very first example is use of parenthetical disambiguation, exactly like Canada Goose (clothing).
And a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling, which is precisely the case with the Goose-related RM.In short, it is important to actually read policies and guidelines closely and to think about their meaning and application, before invoking them much less proposing to change them. Pretty much every word of that policy section is directly against your interpretation of the situation, and the policy material is not out of step with actual community best practices (at least not in this regard).The previous discussion you linked to and this Goose case do not relate in any way; the 2020 thread was about whether we should remove the entire section (or just the point about capitalization, and I've leaned in favor of that myself) on the basis that such small differences may be unreliable indicators of what a reader is actually looking for, especially as texting and instant messaging erode punctuation, capitalization, and other norms in everyday use for a substantial number of readers. I.e., the gist of that thread boils down to a proposal to require more disambiguation. So, if that old discussion had proceeded in the way you seem to wish it had gone, then not only would the Goose case here have turned into exactly the same WP:SNOWBALL on the basis of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, that snowball would have formed faster and harder because of an elevated level of parenthetic disambiguation being enforced. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Currently, WP:NAMECHANGES states that we analyse whether sources routinely uses the new name, but what if both the new and old are used by a source. As a new name many sources include the previous name for their audience. Like "K'gari ( Fraser Island)" here. If a source puts the new name first in primacy, is it classed as one supporting "K'gari", or is the inclusion of Fraser Island still indicate the old name is still needed as the more common one still? (therefore the source not used for supporting "K'gari")
So if a source uses both names, does the order of such be used as support for one or if they still use the old name, even secondarily, that it isn't to be considered until they use the new name alone. Basically is "routinely" to be interpreted as "primarily" or "solely". Unless there is some other criteria. Dank Jae 16:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page. In short, the material needs to move to a naming-conventions guideline, but which page? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (lists)#Fixing disambiguation confusion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
How strict are we being about characters that aren't normally used in English these days?
For example, should Mānuka honey (the Māori word is pronounced something like a thoroughly anglicized Monica; it doesn't represent the long a sound that most Americans will expect) use the macron, or should the page title by Manuka honey without it? Should Gylfi Þorsteinsson Gíslason use the Icelandic Thorn (letter) or the English transliteration or be at Gylfi Thorsteinsson Gíslason (which I think is the standard transliteration)? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
In the article tolon'omby, I have an issue: the current title is said to be the name with broader geographical usage in Madagascar, but the name savika, which is said to be local to the region of Madagascar where this article's topic originates and is most practiced, is the name more commonly used in literature. The French and Malagasy Wikipedias use Savika as their article titles. Neither name is uncommon in literature. Zanahary ( talk) 01:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Another editor recently italicized the title of the article Cult. I disagree. Debating by edit summaries, and by discussion ( Talk:Cult § Italics or not italics for title) has gone nowhere. I think the other editor is reading WP:ITALICTITLE and MOS:WAW too literally because the Cult article starts out, "Cult is a term". However, the article covers far more than just defining a word (unlike how Orange (word) does). Though the article also discusses "cult" as a word, it mainly discusses far broader concepts (my opinion from browsing the article). Also comparing to the previously-discussed-here article Gay which is quite comprehensive though still focused on discussing the word as a word—the article Cult is not focused in like manner.
I'm interested in input by those who frequent this policy article and have more experience in how WP:ITALICTITLE has been applied in the past. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Use italics
when italics would be necessary in running text;forexample,taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.
I checked the 3 discussions as mentioned in the footnote "h" [2], and no one was arguing for or against "words as words". They debated ship names, book titles, and foreign words. Examples such as "orange", "gay" and "cult" were not even on anyone's radar. The result of the discussions was to make this edit to WP:ITALICTITLE which is substantially similar to what we see today, but without the wikilink to MOS:ITALIC. Even in the flurry of microedits in the week that followed, a link to MOS:ITALIC was not part of the paragraph at the time (September 2010).
However, 4 months later (December 2010), an editor made an edit which inserted the wikilink to what is now known as MOS:ITALIC but no one seems to have noticed it at the time. A month later, that editor was indef blocked for disruption (nonresponsive, and too many edits too fast, such as using an indiscriminate bot). They reverted his last 300 edits [3] which wasn't enough to catch this one. (That editor was averaging over 300 edits per day!)
I can conclude, therefore, that "words as words" was never intended to be included in the meaning of ITALICTITLE through consensus process. Possibly the link to MOS:ITALIC also wasn't intended, and certainly there was no active consensus to make the edit.
I recommend the wikilink be removed. It might well reduce the number of "asks" on this talk page, and might reduce some of the debating on individual pages. At any rate, removing the wikilink would be closer to the original consensus results. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I strongly feel that no change is needed here or to MOSITALIC. The change is needed in any article that begins "Foo is a term for..." Articles should almost never start that way. "A cult is a..." That's how you start that article. "Orange is a colour..." etc. Italicising words as words is very useful and taking that out of the MOS would be highly detrimental to so many articles. Primergrey ( talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ahomisation#Neologism as title. Thank you. Mathglot ( talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw that the Fellini film 8½ has "½", which seems to be a special character, and the title should be 8 1/2. Am I wrong? I was surprised to see that there has never been a discussion to move it. I consider myself pretty keyboard-savvy but don't know of a way to make ½ when browsing the Internet. EDIT: Same concern with 9½ Weeks. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I have been warned that this topic will not be well received. I have worked for decades in Quality Management. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopaedia. Is a title and you have therefore capitalised it. Why do these same rules not flow through the site? All page titles should be capitalised, no? My example was Chinese Water Torture. This should be capitalised as the page title, but continually when in use as it describes a specific person, place, organisation, or thing? I thought that this describes the rules well? https://writer.com/blog/capitalization-rules/ I haven't gone to edit anything as I await advice or concuss from the administrators. This is my first time here so hope I have done this correctly? Thanks. 2A0A:EF40:833:2101:5446:6A9:57E3:A13 ( talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)