![]() |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Article titles
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Article titles page. |
|
![]() | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Wikipedia
article titles policy and
Manual of Style, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61 |
Archives by topic: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
On the talk page for Adolphe Schloss I am suggesting that the title be changed to 'The Schlosse Collection'. Presumably this would mean it would no longer come under the biographies heading. If you have an interest, please comment on the talk page. Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 09:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen arguments being made that WP:TITLEVAR means that article titles should use local names such as at Talk:Iarnród Éireann. That we should only consider Irish sources, and for cities in India, only consider what Indians use not the rest of the English-speaking world. I think this is an incorrect interpretation, we should consider the overall WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of where the source is from, not give one source preference to another.
So if TITLEVAR is only about spelling/grammar (I assume it is), can it be clarified to (adding "spelling"):
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's spelling variety of English
or some other clarification. As it's being used to against the overall WP:COMMONNAME across all English-language sources.
Unless their argument is correct, and we should use only local names? If so then that should be clarified too. Dank Jae 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Of the 5 criteria, recognizability is mentioned 3 times, precision 12, concision 8, consistency, 7, naturalness only once, in the criteria list. Each has a section except naturalness. There are references to 'natural', but they are tied-up with recognizability, or another criteria. Recognizability is the dominant criteria through common name; it's a minority of cases where the other criteria come into play, right? I can't think of one example where 'naturalness' becomes the decisive criteria, superceding recognizability i.e. where having only the 4 other criteria would ever create a problem. i can't think of where a recognizable name is unnatural. Recognizability seems to make naturalness redundant. If so, then good to delete to simplify, Tom B ( talk) 23:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact that our criteria overlap (and reinforce each other) is not a problem. They are all still things that we should consider when deciding on an article title. It may be rare for “naturalness” to outweigh the others, but we should still take it into consideration. Blueboar ( talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
familiar with... the subject area. This is where naturalness comes into play: the location of the campaign is more salient than its year, and accordingly, it seems safe to predict that readers searching for this topic will look for a title that distinguishes the campaign by location. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Q related to this bit from
WP:POVNAME: An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use.
. (italics in source; not mine.) Do the italics here imply "the title should be a standout common name"?
104.232.119.107 (
talk)
06:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
In a requested move discussion that was just closed, it was concluded that there is a well-established and widely used naming convention for "subarticles" that cover particular time spans within a larger history topic, using names like History of Foo (1753–1892), with the time span identified inside of parentheses similar to a disambiguation term. This is not about a "Foo" that existed only between 1753 and 1892 that needs to be distinguished from other Foos that existed during other periods of time, but rather about the period of the history of Foo from 1753 to 1892. The time spans look like disambiguation terms, but that's not what they are – instead, they are a fundamental part of the identification of the topic. This is not about a topic called "History of Foo", it is a timespan-based subset of the entire history of Foo. Examples include History of the United States (1776–1789), History of Poland (1918–1939), History of Canada (1960–1981), History of France (1900–present), History of Russia (1894–1917), History of Germany (1945–1990), and History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002). The RM discussion can be found at Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)#Requested move 16 June 2024. The suggestion to rename these to remove the parentheses, as in History of Foo from 1753 to 1892, was rejected. There is a substantial number of articles that use this convention, but I am not aware of anywhere that documents it as an accepted article naming convention on Wikipedia. Should this convention be described somewhere in WP:AT or in some other naming convention description? — BarrelProof ( talk) 23:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Are we cool with both of these title patterns?
The latter sounds more encyclopedic to me, but I'm reluctant to move the first page based on vibes alone. Jruderman ( talk) 22:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Per
WP:ITALICTITLE: Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud).
Does this exception apply to translations of said works? Currently, the titles for translations of the Bible do not seem to be consistently italicized. Here is a sample of the titles of some translations, and at the end I include some translations of religious texts other than the Bible for additional reference:
Title | Italicized? | Notes |
---|---|---|
American Standard Version | ![]() |
|
King James Version | ![]() |
|
New International Version | ![]() |
|
Amplified Bible | ![]() |
|
The Bible: An American Translation | ![]() |
|
Beck's American Translation | ![]() |
|
Bible in Basic English | ![]() |
|
Ferrar Fenton Bible | ![]() |
Official name "The Holy Bible in Modern English" is italicized in lead. |
God's Word Translation | ![]() |
|
The Hebrew Bible (Alter) | ![]() |
|
International Standard Version | ![]() |
|
Jerusalem Bible | ![]() |
|
Lamsa Bible | ![]() |
Italicized in lead. |
The Living Bible | ![]() |
A paraphrase, not a translation of the Bible. |
The Living Torah and Nach | ![]() |
Individually, "The Living Torah" and "The Living Nach" are italicized in lead. |
Matthew Bible | ![]() |
Italicized in lead. |
The Message (Bible) | ![]() |
A paraphrase, not a translation of the Bible. |
Taverner's Bible | ![]() |
Official name "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner" is italicized in lead. |
Statenvertaling | ![]() |
Bible translation into Dutch. |
NBV21 | ![]() |
Bible translation into Dutch. I must say that I did create this article myself, but I have not received any comment on not italicizing the title. |
Vulgate | ![]() |
Bible translation into Latin. |
Luther Bible | ![]() |
Bible translation into German. |
Targum | ![]() |
Bible translation into Aramaic. |
The Koran Interpreted | ![]() |
Quran translation |
The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary | ![]() |
Quran translation |
The Study Quran | ![]() |
Quran translation |
The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition | ![]() |
Talmud translation; Only "Steinsaltz Edition" is italicized in lead. |
Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is | ![]() |
Gita translation |
God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita | ![]() |
Gita translation |
― Howard • 🌽33 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Cõmandement. The "King James Version" isn't the official title of the work, but a moniker assigned to it after the fact, and for that reason I don't believe it should be italicized. (For a similar case from another field, consider the Beatles' White Album: the article uses italics when stating the album's official title, The Beatles, but it doesn't italicize the "White Album" nickname.) This distinction - official titles used by a work's creators/publishers vs. unofficial descriptors that emerge from later scholarship or the general public - is what I would consider to be the main determining factor for whether a given title should be italicized.Your suggestion about the capitalization vs. lowercasing of a preceding "the" is also a useful indicator, in my opinion, but I would argue that it's a side effect of the underlying official/unofficial distinction rather than a fully separate factor. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Article titles
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Article titles page. |
|
![]() | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Wikipedia
article titles policy and
Manual of Style, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61 |
Archives by topic: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
On the talk page for Adolphe Schloss I am suggesting that the title be changed to 'The Schlosse Collection'. Presumably this would mean it would no longer come under the biographies heading. If you have an interest, please comment on the talk page. Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 09:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen arguments being made that WP:TITLEVAR means that article titles should use local names such as at Talk:Iarnród Éireann. That we should only consider Irish sources, and for cities in India, only consider what Indians use not the rest of the English-speaking world. I think this is an incorrect interpretation, we should consider the overall WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of where the source is from, not give one source preference to another.
So if TITLEVAR is only about spelling/grammar (I assume it is), can it be clarified to (adding "spelling"):
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's spelling variety of English
or some other clarification. As it's being used to against the overall WP:COMMONNAME across all English-language sources.
Unless their argument is correct, and we should use only local names? If so then that should be clarified too. Dank Jae 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Of the 5 criteria, recognizability is mentioned 3 times, precision 12, concision 8, consistency, 7, naturalness only once, in the criteria list. Each has a section except naturalness. There are references to 'natural', but they are tied-up with recognizability, or another criteria. Recognizability is the dominant criteria through common name; it's a minority of cases where the other criteria come into play, right? I can't think of one example where 'naturalness' becomes the decisive criteria, superceding recognizability i.e. where having only the 4 other criteria would ever create a problem. i can't think of where a recognizable name is unnatural. Recognizability seems to make naturalness redundant. If so, then good to delete to simplify, Tom B ( talk) 23:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact that our criteria overlap (and reinforce each other) is not a problem. They are all still things that we should consider when deciding on an article title. It may be rare for “naturalness” to outweigh the others, but we should still take it into consideration. Blueboar ( talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
familiar with... the subject area. This is where naturalness comes into play: the location of the campaign is more salient than its year, and accordingly, it seems safe to predict that readers searching for this topic will look for a title that distinguishes the campaign by location. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Q related to this bit from
WP:POVNAME: An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use.
. (italics in source; not mine.) Do the italics here imply "the title should be a standout common name"?
104.232.119.107 (
talk)
06:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
In a requested move discussion that was just closed, it was concluded that there is a well-established and widely used naming convention for "subarticles" that cover particular time spans within a larger history topic, using names like History of Foo (1753–1892), with the time span identified inside of parentheses similar to a disambiguation term. This is not about a "Foo" that existed only between 1753 and 1892 that needs to be distinguished from other Foos that existed during other periods of time, but rather about the period of the history of Foo from 1753 to 1892. The time spans look like disambiguation terms, but that's not what they are – instead, they are a fundamental part of the identification of the topic. This is not about a topic called "History of Foo", it is a timespan-based subset of the entire history of Foo. Examples include History of the United States (1776–1789), History of Poland (1918–1939), History of Canada (1960–1981), History of France (1900–present), History of Russia (1894–1917), History of Germany (1945–1990), and History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002). The RM discussion can be found at Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)#Requested move 16 June 2024. The suggestion to rename these to remove the parentheses, as in History of Foo from 1753 to 1892, was rejected. There is a substantial number of articles that use this convention, but I am not aware of anywhere that documents it as an accepted article naming convention on Wikipedia. Should this convention be described somewhere in WP:AT or in some other naming convention description? — BarrelProof ( talk) 23:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Are we cool with both of these title patterns?
The latter sounds more encyclopedic to me, but I'm reluctant to move the first page based on vibes alone. Jruderman ( talk) 22:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Per
WP:ITALICTITLE: Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud).
Does this exception apply to translations of said works? Currently, the titles for translations of the Bible do not seem to be consistently italicized. Here is a sample of the titles of some translations, and at the end I include some translations of religious texts other than the Bible for additional reference:
Title | Italicized? | Notes |
---|---|---|
American Standard Version | ![]() |
|
King James Version | ![]() |
|
New International Version | ![]() |
|
Amplified Bible | ![]() |
|
The Bible: An American Translation | ![]() |
|
Beck's American Translation | ![]() |
|
Bible in Basic English | ![]() |
|
Ferrar Fenton Bible | ![]() |
Official name "The Holy Bible in Modern English" is italicized in lead. |
God's Word Translation | ![]() |
|
The Hebrew Bible (Alter) | ![]() |
|
International Standard Version | ![]() |
|
Jerusalem Bible | ![]() |
|
Lamsa Bible | ![]() |
Italicized in lead. |
The Living Bible | ![]() |
A paraphrase, not a translation of the Bible. |
The Living Torah and Nach | ![]() |
Individually, "The Living Torah" and "The Living Nach" are italicized in lead. |
Matthew Bible | ![]() |
Italicized in lead. |
The Message (Bible) | ![]() |
A paraphrase, not a translation of the Bible. |
Taverner's Bible | ![]() |
Official name "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner" is italicized in lead. |
Statenvertaling | ![]() |
Bible translation into Dutch. |
NBV21 | ![]() |
Bible translation into Dutch. I must say that I did create this article myself, but I have not received any comment on not italicizing the title. |
Vulgate | ![]() |
Bible translation into Latin. |
Luther Bible | ![]() |
Bible translation into German. |
Targum | ![]() |
Bible translation into Aramaic. |
The Koran Interpreted | ![]() |
Quran translation |
The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary | ![]() |
Quran translation |
The Study Quran | ![]() |
Quran translation |
The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition | ![]() |
Talmud translation; Only "Steinsaltz Edition" is italicized in lead. |
Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is | ![]() |
Gita translation |
God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita | ![]() |
Gita translation |
― Howard • 🌽33 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Cõmandement. The "King James Version" isn't the official title of the work, but a moniker assigned to it after the fact, and for that reason I don't believe it should be italicized. (For a similar case from another field, consider the Beatles' White Album: the article uses italics when stating the album's official title, The Beatles, but it doesn't italicize the "White Album" nickname.) This distinction - official titles used by a work's creators/publishers vs. unofficial descriptors that emerge from later scholarship or the general public - is what I would consider to be the main determining factor for whether a given title should be italicized.Your suggestion about the capitalization vs. lowercasing of a preceding "the" is also a useful indicator, in my opinion, but I would argue that it's a side effect of the underlying official/unofficial distinction rather than a fully separate factor. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)